>> For example, almost all land has been taken by force at some point in its history. I own a house, but the land it was built on is almost certainly stolen property (by your "obvious" notions of property).

Alright. Does that mean that when you buy an iPhone, it's not actually your property? Don't make things too complicated. Sure, if someone acquires "property" through dishonest/coercive means, it's not actually his property - it's the victim's. As a prime example, every single tax dollar the US government has, is not actually its property - it's the people's.

>> For another example, when I get paid, some of that money gets paid as taxes. That's not something I agreed on, by your ideals, I should be able to opt out.

Yes. But paying taxes is clearly not voluntary, and therefore, taxation is immoral. Governments are based on taxation, and therefore governments are immoral. It's very simple.

>> But, my property only exists because of the work of the government to protect it

Nope, you have your property as long as someone else doesn't interfere with your exclusive control over it. You're free to defend your property if the need arises. Government is not necessary for that. Besides, even with governments, robberies happen. It's not like they give a fuck.

>> By removing my land from my country I would be breaking the implicit agreements formed when it was first entered into the land registry.

Don't you think this is a bit far-fetched? You can't "remove land" from your country. You talk about implicit agreements but does it make sense to consider them binding when it's unclear they're even there in the first place?

>> The same goes for other things besides land, in particular, the companies I work for are registered and protected by my country.

You keep listing things that are "protected" by your country, but are they really, and in what circumstances and to whose benefit? Couldn't property rights be protected by: 1) private individuals, 2) private security services, 3) private, objective third-party organizations?

Why yes, yes they could.

>> Corporations are abstract concepts, they can only exist by being built on a complex shared legal framework.

As if a "complex" legal framework was necessary, or even a good thing? For example, why is Dodd-Frank thousands of pages long? Are "corporations" necessary? -How about you just do business as your self? -Want to separate your personal property from your company's property? -Why? What are you up to? -Or are you afraid of patent trolls and the like? It's a dysfunctional justice system that makes patent trolling even possible!

>> Again, if you own or want to start a company you might want to opt out, but everything that got you to the stage of being able to opt out is built on implicit social agreements between you and your nation.

Oh come on. The Social Contract rears its ugly head. Of course, this is where you were headed all along. But think about it for a moment. Does it make any sense to think we're all under a binding contract that we were never even told about, let alone asked to agree to? If you think it does, then you'll need to start paying taxes to me, based on your "implicit agreement" to the AnonCowherd -contract, which stipulates that 25% of all of your income ever belongs to me.

>> When I earn money, I do not create value in a vacuum. Everything I do relies on the wider society. I'm not just talking about the obvious things like roads and the police.

Ah yes. As if nothing useful could/did ever exist without governments.

>> Social structure itself is vital to enable my ability to earn money. I thrive because I live in a relatively peaceful society with a shared language I can communicate in, with shared cultural norms that make life comfortable. Those things are shared property, belonging to society a whole, for which we all owe a debt and a reward.

What's next? Praise the government for giving you two feet, two hands, and opposable thumbs? It's only right that you be a tax-slave for all your adult life, because the oh-so-lovely government has given you air to breathe, and land to walk on!

>> The very notion of money itself is a social construct. The faces on your money belong to your government leaders. Money only has value because we all agree that it has value.

Money is a means of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less. It's pretty fucking useful because it lets us trade at a higher level than direct barter, and that's precisely why it even exists in the first place, and why it's never going anywhere.

>> In a sense, all money belongs to all of society. Everyone owes a debt to everyone else for the simple fact that we don't have to barter. You might think this sounds ridiculous, but this idea of ownership exists and is prevalent. Governments print and destroy money, they manage circulation, they control inflation. In a general sense, the currency belongs to the government.

Wow. Even more of the same. "All hail the government, for blessing us with all that we have!!"

Do you not see you're going way overboard with this? Of course, this kind of thinking is what you need to cling to, to avoid having to face reality.

>> You can't have an absolute fair notion of property. It doesn't exist. Every piece of land has been stolen at least once.

Related: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp

>> Everything else was created through some level of coercion.

Everything, huh? :p

>> The distribution of wealth has never been fair. It wasn't fair when I was born, and so the requirement for me to earn a living (because I was not born rich) is an unfair coercion.

No, that's an accident of birth. Or is it "unfair coercion" on your part, for example, that you have functioning legs and someone else doesn't?

>>Absolute fairness requires isolation from all implicit social contracts, which is impossible for humans to do.

Who decides what's "fair"? What does "fair" mean?

>> Most importantly, absolute fairness based around the single ideal that no-one can take someone else's property would be an awful and inhumane way to run a society.

Oh? How come?

>> The people who have more property then others have a way of convincing themselves that they deserve it.

What if they've earned all their wealth through saving, producing, and voluntary exchanges?

>> Which is an argument that can be used to justify all manner of horrors. On the other hand, if we put aside ideals and look at what practically makes a better society, under any reasonable set of measures, reducing income disparity is a good thing.

How about reducing handicap disparity too? Since handicapped people can't be made un-handicapped, and they're at an obvious unfair(!) disadvantage compared to us, we need to make more people handicapped to reduce the disparity!

So let's start chopping people's legs off to make our society more fair! -Sound like a good idea?

>> Society is a set of implicit and explicit rules that form a game. Money and status are like scores of the game. If wealth accumulates too much in one person, that does not mean that this person deserves to live like a king while others needlessly starve.

More of the same. You've got two themes here: 1) "Praise the government for giving us all that we have!" and 2) "It's unfair that rich people are rich, and their money should be given to us (=me)".

>> It means the rules of the game are exploitable and need to be adjusted.

Exploitable, you say? Kind of like how Wall Street gambles like crazy, keeps any profits, and has us pay for any losses?

>> Not everyone is a master strategist, not everyone has the abilities to get rich. In the future, most people won't even be able to get a job.

Why?

>> Those people don't deserve to suffer just for being normal humans. The people who can do useful work (and I include myself in here) don't especially deserve to be saved from suffering just by virtue of having been born with unusual skills.

Rright. And all those handicapped people are needlessly suffering from us not being handicapped! We need to make ourselves handicapped to reduce the disparity! Stop the evil oppression of being able to walk!!

>> Society can easily reward those who work hard and have valuable skills to contribute. These people can be made very comfortable.

Oh? And how does "Society" reward them? -You know, all money has to come from somewhere. If society wants to reward someone with money, society first has to acquire that money through one of these means: 1) confiscation, 2) printing, 3) borrowing. The first is clearly immoral, the second causes inflation and robs people of their purchasing power, and the third is limited by interest payments and trust, as the Western world is about to find out. Those three are inter-related too, of course, and together form a feedback loop of a society turning into shit.

>> Society can also look after those people who do not have the skills to become wealthy, who are not suitable for positions of power.

With whose money? Someone has to work to produce the money given to the "needy", right?

>> There is enough to go round.

Really? How do you know?

>> It's possible for us to have a peaceful, low-crime, happy, healthy society where those who earn a lot have to put up with sharing some of it

Putting up "sharing", huh? :P Well, that sure sounds nicer than putting up with "having your property forcefully confiscated".

>> Or, we can ruin ourselves over an impractical ideal of property that, at root, is like a child clinging to a toy and shouting "mine".

Well then, I guess I can just come over and take everything you have in your possession. I'm sure you wouldn't object to that like some kind of selfish little brat, right?