Justification for the state and taxes on moral grounds

That is because it is part of our social contract
Ownership is an effective way of distributing resources, that is able to outcompete other distributive methods
People are okay with ownership of goods in the current system, but it does not follow that in the system where they are not compensated they would respect the ownership also
Historically they did not
- The French Revolution was driven mainly because of inequality and economic issues
- I don’t think the problem was the monarchy, but the unbearable state of being poor human at that time
- It is funny, but historically most the revolutions and unrests (and eventually totalitarian regimes) were founded not on the state chipping power of the people by small amounts, but because ordinary people were alienated

Why should it be a natural right? Any natural right justification seems arbitrary
It even seems counterintuitive, who gave someone a justification to acquire resources that once belonged to everybody?
- It was everyone’s property, then someone came and said now this piece of land is mine, because of what?
- ”Because I added labor to it”
  - How can you add labor to a river?
  - You can add more fish or clean the river, but that river would have given some fish to others either way
  - You have some claim on the fruits from the river you took care of, but not for everything the river provided, even without your labor
  - What about when someone else is mixing his labor on your behalf, is then that property his?
  - If your argument leverages the tragedy of the commons, then it is not an argument from the rights perspective, but from the consequentialist perspective
Ownership should be a natural right because it creates the best consequences for the people
- This is better, but now the argument of the rights to ownership is open to modifications in cases this does not follow

Both are territorial, right?
Yes, but the mafia does not have any right to your property and the state has (in a limited sense).
The reason you are able to have property is that its a part of the social contract, people agreed to give (more concretely rent) the property everyone could use before, but they want you to pay your part of the rent
If you don’t do it it’s equivalent to not paying rent.
If you still think this is unethical, I don’t see a way that renting/owning property is ethical (the price of rent is mainly consisting of the value of the land/locality)
Not paying taxes is just a contract breach

Your family did, when you were born, in the same way, they would consent to apply the rules of the rented flat on your behalf. Or if you immigrated here as a child then you accepted the terms when you became a citizen.
Until you live here you must abide by the contract and if you don’t like it leave or try to change the contract using the system itself.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that the people do not really have a choice to leave or that this choice is so hard that there is effectively no choice at all, but anarcho-capitalists most of the time do not really care about the terms and conditions of the contract and are against the positive rights, which this would surely be.
There are currently hundreds of different states for you to choose from. I don’t think there would be any anarcho-capitalist, which would say that this is not enough competition.
This argument works only if people are allowed to leave the country. I am not going to justify regimes where this is not possible on these grounds.
Btw no one consented to the anarcho-capitalist social contract either in the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist land, why can’t they use the same argument to not respect someone’s property claims?

I don’t see a way in which one of those would be justified and others would not
”Taxes are theft for me and I am not going to pay them"
"Inheritance is unjustified so I am going to steal and distribute some of your possessions to others"
"I think you are raising your kid in the wrong way so I am going to steal your child”
I think there is some place for misbehaving in cases when every other way of demonstration fails, but if you are a wealthy, young, programmer who earns large amounts of money I think it is immoral for you not to pay the taxes even though you think it’s unjustified
There are cases of actual unjust laws that are so clear cut it hurts (weed laws, gay marriage, freedom of speech), where I think the misbehaving could be justified
Vigilante justice is allowed only if we have extraordinary evidence its bad, in this case, I don’t think we do.

Nareks Rubrics^3