ResidenSea and Taxes

[JeffS]

I was watching the Travel Channel late one night and saw a program on the The World. You don't have to go to the link. Basically, it's a ship which travels around the world. You purchase an apartment and live there. The residents own a piece of the ship. They vote on where to go for the next year. They didn't say in the program, and they don't mention anything (that I've found) on the web site about annual fees, but I'm sure there are some. It's one of those "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" things (base minimum net worth is $5M). It costs a lot of money to run a ship, especially that one. However, and they didn't mention this either, I'm sure there are no taxes to be paid.

So, basically you have individuals subject to no government (as the term is commonly used), and therefore no government taxation save whatever taxation might arise as a result of certain business transactions. Yet, they are subject to a sort of government and a sort of taxation in the sense that there is a captain of the boat and they have to abide by certain rules; they also have to pay these fees to maintain the boat.

How is this different from a land-based government charging "fees" (in the form of taxes) for the right to own land-based property? That is, would it be morally legitimate for a government to exact fees, in the form of taxes, for the right to live in that country just as the owners of apartments on The World must pay fees to live there.

I think the answer may lie in the fact that someone built this ship - someone created it and therefore has the right to dispose of it as they wish. They sell it to others, and get to set the rules on who gets to live there. That's different from land which no one created and therefore no one has the right to dispose of (initially). However, Ayn Rand maintained the only moral form of taxation would be a voluntary tax. Wouldn't property tax be a voluntary tax? That is: if you want to live here, you're going to have to pay for the maintenance - you're going to have to pay the fees. "You're free to leave," as liberals are so fond of saying. You've voluntarily chosen to live here, just as residents of The World voluntarily chose to live aboard their ship. As such, you'll have to pay the fees - you'll have to pay the tax.

[Chris.S]

You kind of answered yourself in your post. Government has no proper right charging you for your right to own property. Ownership of property is not granted by government, it comes from your right to life. That boat is private property, and seems to be a business. Payment in living there includes the ability to give your say on where to go next. I think there are similar set-ups in condos and apartment buildings.

The argument of "you're free to leave", if you accept the idea, means you've accepted that the government has a right to take your property (money) for the right to own property (land), as if the government owned all the land within its borders and was graciously allowing you the use of a small piece for awhile. It also means you've given up the fight for your freedoms.

Basically, the difference is that you're freely paying to live on that boat and accepting whatever rules are there because it is private property, but you already live on and own private property and government is taking little bits by force.

[JeffS]

Okay, the Objectivism would disagree with Eminent Domain?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The short answer is yes.

The longer answer is that Eminent Domain is someone stealing from you, and the fact that it is a government makes no difference; government (or any other collective) has no rights that individuals do not have--individual have no right to steal your land for their own purposes, therefore neither does the government.

[JeffS]

The short answer is yes.

The longer answer is that Eminent Domain is someone stealing from you, and the fact that it is a government makes no difference; government (or any other collective) has no rights that individuals do not have--individual have no right to steal your land for their own purposes, therefore neither does the government.

Well, I've always been sort of fuzzy on this, so I hope you don't mind walking me through it, Steve.

I bought my real property from a developer, who presumably bought it from the farmer who once farmed this land. That farmer may have bought the land from some other farmer, but eventually we get to the point where some guy staked out some ground and didn't buy it from anyone. Or, he bought it from the government who bought it from the French, who didn't buy it from anyone. How come that first guy owned the property?

[eficazpensador]

How come that first guy owned the property?

Because (presumably) he applied his labor to the land. He either farmed it/settled it or something to that effect.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

He was the first to make use of it and claim it as his property. Incidentally our government regarded its role as the custodian of the land until someone made good use of it; I don't know what the French government thought when they owned this land (I assume you live somewhere on the Louisiana purchase, as do I).

[JeffS]

He was the first to make use of it and claim it as his property. Incidentally our government regarded its role as the custodian of the land until someone made good use of it; I don't know what the French government thought when they owned this land (I assume you live somewhere on the Louisiana purchase, as do I).

The Native Americans that roamed this land (yes, Louisiana Purchase, but really all of America) were making use of it. Is the difference that they didn't claim it as property?