>having to run to a different place to get answers in your argument
You’ve already lost.

>>2907
Butthurt.

If you can’t stand your own in a debate why should anyone even think you are a good representative of libertarian ideas?

>>2908
I can stand on my own 90% of the time, it's just this one particular argument that I have trouble with. Why bother responding to this thread if you're not gonna help?

>>2909
>10% failure rate
Yikes

>>2910
Shit, meant to put 99%. Good catch.

Rothbard actually addresses this specific point The Ethics of Liberty. Put shortly, states don't legitimately own anything and all of their claims to property are void.

>>2912
Thanks for actually helping. Could you elaborate more on this point?

Let me guess, this meme was found on some far leftist subreddit?

These people actually think if landlords weren't in the picture people would have less housing costs. They're quite stupid.

Also if it's wrong for people to rent out their land to people, then it's wrong for anyone to own any land or make decisions about that land.

Also these leftists don't understand that land in a free market comes from homesteading. Following leftist logic, nobody should be allowed to own any land except "the collective".

ALSO it's hilarious that these ancoms call themselves anarchists when they have all of these arbitrary rules of what you can and can not do on your property

ALL ancoms are statists.

>>2914
Not him but the way states have acquired most of the territory that is claimed to be theirs is either through conquest (which is about as valid as saying that a car is rightfully yours once you have stolen it) or purchases/treaties with other states that hold claims of similar validity upon the land. If no state has actually claimed that land, a state will claim to have authority over that land without the consent of all of its inhabitants. (Normally, you can't just claim that you own the land someone is living on if they were living there first). They do not engage in voluntary negotiation with an individual who has an actual private property claim on the land, either from homesteading or through negotiation with another individual; so the way they transact in territory is outside the scope of private property. If the state wants to actually use that land, they often seize it from the individual with either the use of force or the threat of it, sometimes with some kind of financial compensation, e.g. tax money, which can give the illusion of a voluntary transaction. If the means by which states claimed territory constituted ownership, then the mafia could just as easily be said to own the establishments from which it extorts protection money.

>>2921
Good post, but what are some arguments justifying landlording and charging rent?

Why bother justifying it? The simple fact of the matter is that rent is consensual, and taxes are not. Hence, rent is justified, and taxes are not. Claiming that they are the same thing falls apart after the smallest amount of consideration. Rent is part of a contractual agreement, taxes are not (the "social contract" doesn't exist, and even if it did, the state is the sole party with the ability to change the terms of the contract, and does so without the agreement of the taxpayer), so the standard punishment for not paying wildly differs between the two.

The most common reasons I've seen for complaining about rent are notions of fairness or the amount of work a landlord has to do to make money, with the image you posted falling into the latter ("hard earned income"). Work has no inherent value, so this doesn't actually matter, but in a practical sense, people that think landlords can just sit back and earn revenue are sorely mistaken. There are many obligations to fulfill, and if your property is in a shitty area, for instance, the likelihood of your tenants not following through on their contractual obligations is relatively high. There are plenty of other contractual obligations that have to be fulfilled, too, with this obviously varying depending on location and such. The idea of landlords sitting back and just getting rich is a leftist fantasy.

>>2904
What do you need help with? This is piss easy.
You are free to engage or not engage in an agreement with someone who owns a particualr spot of land and you recieve an agreed upon set of services which have to measure themselves to the global or at least local market for renting property.
In essence it shows, like always, that the left are bugmen who never had property which they could have put up for rent and thus have no idea what it takes to maintain a property much less keep it attractive to new customers or deal with the retards you sometimes get to deal with.

At least you get something when you pay rent which is having a roof over your head for a fixed period of time, when you pay taxes you hardly get anything in return that would been better if you paid for it on a free market.

>>2923
Taxes are consensual, though. By living in a state that uses taxation to raise funds, you consent to those taxes. If you don't like them, then just like go somewhere else.

>>2933
>By living in a state
False, the state is occupying our property, not vice versa

>>2922
Because unlike the state, the landlord actually has a private property claim on the land as a result of voluntary negotiations. I don't see how rent has to be justified past that.

>>2933
But the state doesn't have a legitimate claim to the property that it claims to own. That's like saying the mafia can move in on your property and by living on that property, you consent to paying them protection money, and if you don't like the mafia, you can just move off "their" property.

>>2935
Why have you let the state occupy your property?
>>2936
>But the state doesn't have a legitimate claim to the property that it claims to own
Those who consent to the state give the state its legitimacy. Where that fails, might makes right.
>That's like saying the mafia can move in on your property and by living on that property, you consent to paying them protection money, and if you don't like the mafia, you can just move off "their" property.
If you're the type to allow the mafia to just take over your property like that, then you clearly deserve to lose ownership.

>>2933
>>2939

You do realize that your logic prevents you from complaining about anything the government does that you disagree with, right?

If you don't like mass immigration, just move. If you don't like welfare, just move. As long as you stay, you're fine with these things. So if you don't leave, you consent. This leaves you a supporter of, depending on where you live of course, welfare parasites, immigration, abortion, pro lgbt messaging in government schools, so on and so forth.

>>2939
>Why have you let the state occupy your property?
This doesn't have anything to do with the original question. No matter how much you repeat "might makes right", that still doesn't make anything done with the threat of violence "consensual", unless you want to tell me that rape at gunpoint is consensual, in which case I would question whether your definition of consent is really useful at all.
From a moral standpoint, if everyone were to behave as you say--that if libertarians should not worry about taxes because they are "consensual" under your "might makes right" doctrine, then you should not worry about any sort of global elite, the government, Google, The Jews, etc. because after all, "might makes right". In fact, you would not logically be able to complain about anything in the world that is out of your control, because "might makes right".
From a utilitarian standpoint, capitalism isn't a "might makes right" economic system. The inefficiencies of states manifest due to their inherent nature of using violence to act against people's natural preferences.

>>2942
Considering you lolbertarians are never actually going to pursue action against the state, moving away from the state is the only realistic option you have.

>>2945
You are shifting goalposts. You are now talking about what can be done rather than what ought to be done, and not posing an actual argument against the original proposition that taxes are not consensual.

>>2933
>muh social contract
Retard

>>2946
He's a NigSoc, there's no room in his ooga-booga brain for a distinction between "can be" and "ought to be"

We are living in the end times. This lockdown is permanent. Those who thought that the US was too big to be locked down now have found out that the entire world can easily be put under house arrest. The elites will not stop because no one will resist. Even if there is a vaccine for this virus, the globalists will create another virus scare or start another crisis by saying that the Russians are coming. The ruling class will cull the 99% by using abortion, suicide, starvation, war, and concentration camps. When the government says report to the town square, run for the woods.

>>2944 >>2939 "Might makes right" faggots are insufferable. They never actually follow with their principle, if they actually were following by it then they would have gotten into real politics and tried to gain as much control as possible for any reason. They always try to justify why a certain group or state does something well, but their idea falls apart when you look at the level of individual and ask "why should individual not fight against it for his own selfish good?".

Why have affirmative action if the free market will drive out bad businesses?

>>2904 >Rape is just like sex

Is Rand Paul the only American who still cares about freedom?