Demonstrate the principle to me.

At the same time, I’d invite you to examine how british government, and particularly public taxation and spending, changed between 1970 and 1990. It’s an interesting one :).

No, but he recognized a trend–that the nature of government is to grow–and attempted to stop that trend through various mechanisms. By any reasonable standard, those mechanisms have failed. The Constitution did not achieve the intended purpose of limiting the growth of government.

I don’t see where you disputed the principle. You did not show that a limit exists on how much the government can tax us or regulate our bodies, nor did you show any structural mechanism for how continual government expansion could ever be stopped.

strange extrapolation from a Jefferson quote. As one of tbe founding fathers of the present system, I’m fairly sure he wasn’t an anarchist :).

On the other, you missed the point. I disputed the principle, and so saw no reason to address the rest.

If I said ‘if there is no limit, in principle, to the power Micky Mouse has over children, then he effectively owns them.’ you could comfortably refute it by questioning the principle, rather than addressing the logic structured on top.

Y’see?

It preceded the Jefferson quote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” I was curious if you think Jefferson was a loony anarcho-capitalist who loves Somalia, hates logic, and appeals to emotion for arguing that the government will continue to grow, despite any attempts to stop it.

I read the whole thread. I saw nothing in it that disputes my point: If there is no limit, in principle, on how much the government can tax us or regulate our bodies, then it effectively owns us.

The “right”?

Forget it, Bernard.

Beck was right, right here: ‘Jesus H. Christ in a chicken-basket. This is absolutely fucking hopeless.’

Words just don’t mean *anything* *at* *all* to you.

‘The why do you pay “taxes” or get “licences” or “permits” or “registrations”? For *fun*?’

I have a driving license, which gives me the right to drive (but in no way compromises my ownership of my car). And a tv license, which is a bizarre form of taxation to fund the bbc but which, again, in no way compromises my tv ownership. Again, your point simply does not follow from the analysis you’ve given.

In “contrast to ownership”? Are you, once again, saying that the government owns everything, and merely *loans* us stuff?

“I have no such restrictions on my property.”

The why do you pay “taxes” or get “licences” or “permits” or “registrations”? For *fun*?

‘Who knew that Thomas Jefferson was a loony anarcho-capitalist who loves Somalia, hates logic, and appeals to emotion?’

Did this spring from anywhere in particular? It doesn’t seem to fit with anything so far discussed.

‘If there is no limit, in principle, on how much the government can tax us or regulate our bodies, then it effectively owns us….’

Have to stop you there Micha. This is precisely the premise of John’s which I’ve been challenging. Any conclusions you draw on top of it will be equally contentious. Best read what we’ve been saying and join in where you have something to add :).

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Bernard,

If there is no limit, in principle, on how much the government can tax us or regulate our bodies, then it effectively owns us. The fact that the government allows us to transfer some rights to and from each other, and allows us some spending money does not refute this. That a slave owner may give his slaves a weekly allowance to spend at the company store does not negate the fact that they are still his slaves.

Who owns you, Bernard?

Do you still hold that your definition ‘..is enough, in principle, to allow that entity unlimited power.’ or will this need to be refined too?

On the ownership issue.

I used rentals as an example in contrast to ownership. I’ve read it again and it looks clear to me. Which passage of mine are you referring to?

On the license issue. That’s something to take up with your government. I have no such restrictions on my property.

I’ll try again: A government is an entity that *claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force* in a given geographic area. Max Weber is the author, according to this ( http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/guillory/guillory1.html ).

“My challenge to the idea that ownership is always linked to exclusive control nowhere inferred that we were renting property from the Government.”

Then why’d you use rentals as an example? Again:

“Would you accept a tenant paying you your own money in rent?”

Is your contention that we are *renting our stuff* from the government, or not? If not, then please explain why there are such things as ‘licences’, backed by ‘confiscation’, on what’s purportedly my stuff.

That definition certainly would be enough, but it’s not one I’ve heard before, and it certainly isn’t one which holds true in practice. Where does it come from?

On the ownership issue:

You said - ‘If you *owned* those things, again, you would have exclusive *control* of those things. Which you explicitly do not.’

I replied - ‘On the second, where have you read that ownership is only real in the case of ‘exclusive control’? It’s quite obviously false. Think bank accounts or rented property. The bank and the tennants do not assume a degree of ownership when they receive a degree of control.’

My challenge to the idea that ownership is always linked to exclusive control nowhere inferred that we were renting property from the Government. You seem to have picked up the word ‘rented’ and run in another direction with it.

If the Government did own everything, including people, as you have asserted, we would have no resources with which to pay rent. Would you accept a tenant paying you your own money in rent?

Likewise, if you are renting an item, you have no power to sell, rent out to others or use an item for collateral to secure a loan. These are rights associated with ownership.

Thus the government does not own my property. Nor does it claim to.

A government is an entity that has absolute power over a given geographical area. That definition is enough, in principle, to allow that entity unlimited power.

You claim that that isn’t the case. I’ve invited you to show me a law that, in principle, could restrain government.

You haven’t shown one.

“On the ownership issue, your conclusion only follows illogically from what I said.”

Reread the posts, Bernard. Feel free to point out the illogic.

Because the people it represents choose to allow it to. Not because its growth is a matter of logical necessity.

On the principle issue, as we appear to be in a loop, let’s try from another angle.

You said, originally:

‘He endorses theft via government, but doesn’t endorse the logical conclusion that his endorsement of the sort of theft he approves of necessarily means that he endorses all government theft, in principle.’

Now, this is where things went awry. There is no principle by which government can do this. The controls on behaviour of particular governments in particular places at particular times stem from the will of the people. Objective principles are, unless you reference a deity, simply irrelevant to this issue, while subjective ones are specific to certain governments in certain places at certain times.

On the ownership issue, your conclusion only follows illogically from what I said. I’m not quite sure how you arrived there. Can you explain?

Different governments are evidently different in the degree that they interfere in their subjects’ lives, in practice. In practice, though, the US government is growing: new laws are published every week in the Federal Register, new taxes/tariffs also. The Constitution is being essentially ignored out of existence. The US government certainly isn’t *being* “limited”.

You haven’t shown how government can be limited, in principle. At most, you’ve shown that some governments are less virulent than others.

“The bank and the tennants do not assume a degree of ownership when they receive a degree of control.”

So your claim is that we’re all effectively renting our stuff from the government? That’s my point exactly.

If they did, the workings of state would be altogether less arduous.

On the second, where have you read that ownership is only real in the case of ‘exclusive control’? It’s quite obviously false. Think bank accounts or rented property. The bank and the tennants do not assume a degree of ownership when they receive a degree of control.