1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Heathian anarchism a better fit for Seasteading than anarcho-capitalism?

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Heathian anarchism a better fit for Seasteading than anarcho-capitalism?

This topic contains 22 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of DrMandible DrMandible 4 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7568
    Profile photo of Alan
    Alan
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    I’m talking about moving to another state. I am a U.S. citizen, and I pay my taxes. If I ever get fed up enough with the quality of service I can just move to Australia…or New Zealand…or the U.K. I will no longer pay taxes to the U.S. So how are taxes not voluntary if I can leave whenever I want?

    Don’t get me wrong…I’m not defending the system that existing states use. I just don’t understand this whole “taxes are forced on me” issue.

    If I may jump in for a moment:

    Oh, as a U.S. citizen you can just pick up and move to Australia, New Zealand, or the U.K.? I’ve got news for you . . .

    Unless you have a skill that those countries want, this will be more difficult than you might expect. If you are over 50, it will be even harder. Even if you have the skills, you will have to go through quite a process to get permission to live in one of these countries. The average U.S. citizen would have a very difficult time getting permission to move.

    Then, even if you make the transition and give up your U.S. citizenship, the United States government may still attempt to collect taxes from you for another ten years. This will be despite having not even a pretense of having representation – not that most U.S. citizens have any meaningful representation in government at present. How is this voluntary?

    #7569
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I never chose to become a dutch citizen, yet I am

    Yes but in a Heathian-system seastead I assume you would have children. And they would be born into this system by no say of theirs, and be required to pay rent when they come of age. How is that any different than taxes?

    In my system, children born into a system are dependents, without any obligations. Should they seek full citizenship rights, they would have to make an explicit choice to join a community.

    Technically, i can move to a better juristriction

    I’m talking about moving to another state. I am a U.S. citizen, and I pay my taxes. If I ever get fed up enough with the quality of service I can just move to Australia…or New Zealand…or the U.K. I will no longer pay taxes to the U.S. So how are taxes not voluntary if I can leave whenever I want?

    Don’t get me wrong…I’m not defending the system that existing states use. I just don’t understand this whole “taxes are forced on me” issue.

    Im talking about moving to another state as well. Insofar as the choice is affordable at all, it isnt worth it, since they are all pretty much exactly the same countries.

    Like i said, there is no difference in kind, but possibly, a huge difference of degree could be realized.

    #7578
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    This is one point that always confuses me. Why do people consider taxes involuntary? You say paying rent to a seastead owner is better because you can always “move to a better one”. Can’t you do that if you are paying “taxes” to a seastead “government”? You voluntarily pay your taxes and if you don’t like the services you move to a better one. Isn’t this just an issue of semantics?

    If you don’t pay your rent, you get evicted. If you don’t pay your taxes you get sent to jail. (I suppose the latter could be a form of free rent though.)

    You don’t have a choice about paying taxes or not. But you do have a choice about where to lease or buy a property.

    The difference is between state force and choice, coercion and freedom.

    #7579
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    Yes but in a Heathian-system seastead I assume you would have children. And they would be born into this system by no say of theirs, and be required to pay rent when they come of age. How is that any different than taxes?

    The difference is that they can choose to say and participate or not. If they choose to stay, then it was a conscious, voluntary, deliberate decision. In other words, they have freedom of movement based on choice.

    If they move to a country that has taxes and refuse to pay those taxes, then they become subject to state control and force (i.e., become criminals). In other words, they become prisoners with no freedom of movement, based on coercion.

    I understand your point about how these may seem the same on the sufrace or in effect, but in actuality, they’re very different. The controlling authority in a free system is the individual, i.e., personal choice. The controlling authority in a state is the state, i.e., government force against the individual. In the first case, the individual determines the outcome freely. In the second case the state determines the outcome coercively.

    I’m talking about moving to another state. I am a U.S. citizen, and I pay my taxes. If I ever get fed up enough with the quality of service I can just move to Australia…or New Zealand…or the U.K. I will no longer pay taxes to the U.S. So how are taxes not voluntary if I can leave whenever I want?

    If you don’t give up your U.S. citizenship, then you are obliged by U.S. law to pay taxes to the U.S. on a portion of your non-U.S. income even if you physically live outside the U.S. (Almost no other country has such a rule.) If you become a citizen or resident of Australia or New Zealand or the U.K., then you’re obliged to pay taxes to them. Else you risk their use of state force against you, including imprisonment.

    #7580
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    JLMadrigal wrote:
    It would be a mistake to differentiate a Heathist multi-tenant lease from Anarcho-capitalism. Since the property holder is making land use decisions regarding his property, he may determine which companies or techniques are used for its defense, upkeep, and value maintenance – as long such techniques do not violate the lease. Furthermore, to the extent that the leasing agency does not violate libertarian principles (particularily the libertarian rights of the tenants), as outlined in the Civil Order Pact (

    http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke

    ) it provides a libertarian anarcho-capitalist system.

    90% of the Clubstead Master Lease (wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/ClubStead_Master_Lease) was written by Spencer Heath MacCallum for the proprietary community of Atlantis (http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f33m1.html). I have made special arrangements with Mr. MacCallum for him to receive a predetermined fraction of my proceeds should I be fortunate enough to use it. The lease takes special care, Thief, to assure that property will not be taken away on a whim, and to assure that leaseholders can receive full benefits for their improvements.

    A Singaporian penal system is quite unnecessary with such a lease. “Crimes” must have victims.

    A property owners’ association, while it still arguably falls under anarcho-capitalism, has all of the disadvantages of majoritarianism (AKA Democracy).

    Regarding a substitute for statist currency, I like such alternatives as e-gold and the use of stock certificates … but ultimately the buyers and sellers will decide what medium they like best.

    I agree Heathism is a form of anarcho-capitalism. I was trying to differentiate them based on protection agencies. If Heath is based on a singular protection agency, then that’s a significant variation on pluralistic protection agencies. The incentives and operational aspects of having one or multiple protection agencies covering the same territory may be very different. Think for example of territorial or jurisdictional conflicts between multiple protection agencies operating in the same territory. Having a single protection agency would seem to reduce that potential to near zero.

    Regarging MacCallum’s Atlantis community and the Clubstead Master Lease, I’m delighted to hear about it and shamed for not following things closely enough to hear that Spencer was involved. He is the grandson of Spencer Heath and the keeper of Heath’s work. I can think of no one better to help write such a master lease. Patri and I had the pleasure of meeting Spencer MacCallum at his Civil Society Institute talk at Santa Clara University several years ago. Here is my report about that event.

    Regarding Singaporean justice, I agree that crimes must have victims. If someone doesn’t flush a “public” toilet after using it, then they have imposed a small cost on the next person to use it, or the owner via higher maintenance costs. If common areas are owned by the leaseholder, then they are a victim for abuse of “public” facilities. The mere act of chewing gum in public, however would appear to have no identifiable victims, either in Singapore or anywhere else and therefore should not be a crime.

    Regarding a property owners’ association, I agree it basically re-introduces politics, potentially putting the snake back into the garden of eden as it were. However it would seem that the incentives would be radically different for property owners under an explicit voluntary contract as opposed to passive government subjects under am implicit social contract. So it may not be as bad as it seems, and it would be based on choice, as is a land-based condo association (minus the usually “public” services like police, sewer, water, power, etc.). One has a conscious, explicit choice to enter a property owners’ association contract or not, and the conditions are clearly laid out and specified up front.

    Regarding currency, gold, stock, and private enterprise money all seem better than a government fiat currency.

    #7584
    Profile photo of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    Protection agencies tend to operate on a community by community basis. Each stead will be a community in itself. Protection under each lease may differ from stead to stead, but will likely follow that of private residential communities and malls on this scale.

    http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/Civilization101.html

    #7635
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    JLMadrigal wrote:
    Protection agencies tend to operate on a community by community basis. Each stead will be a community in itself. Protection under each lease may differ from stead to stead, but will likely follow that of private residential communities and malls on this scale.

    Sure. I was trying to point out some possible differences for multiple versus a single protection agency per stead.

    #11627
    Profile photo of DrMandible
    DrMandible
    Participant

    thief wrote:

    I think it has alot of merit, but falls on one important point. People want to own something. I personally am very much opposed to having to rent anything. When I put money somewhere, U want something at the end of it.

    Plus there’s a question of security. People don’t want to spend their adult lives in a home that could be taken away at any moment.

    And home improvements. Who decides what home improvements a person can do? And then, of course, the person has to leave their home with the improvements they’ve built.

    It’s a good idea, but I won’t be staying on your stead.

    - Nick

    I take this argument from the other side. I don’t want my society to rent its resources, I want it to own them, though not personally. If the resources and means of production are owned by a capitalist, then the colony is limited to merely different shades of capitalism. The means of production must be owned by the society, with the benefits being kept within the community, not paid in dividends to a capitalist owner.

    I understand that people may differ in their desires, and viciously disagree with my desires. Nevertheless, within the spirit of this project, we must not preclude the ability for a truly anarchist or, for that matter, socialist, collectivist, or communist society to exist outside the bounds of capitalism.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate