From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:00:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.070424.2916@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <93010.220001SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>To take a real life case: how can you relate the
>>vast fortune MicroSoft has brought Bill Gates (which I don't begrudge
>>him, by the way) to his right to life?
>
>simple -- by his actions and the product of his mind (and others',
>of course), he *created* the wealth he has. a better question would be
>who else has a right to that wealth, and why?

It is possible to argue that those institutions that have supported
him in some way in being able to prepare his mind to create things
like MS-DOG might have some claim; however, since there was no
contract (explicit or otherwise) defining such a claim, the point is
moot.

The question really is of who might morally have a claim on the
benefits; the only obvious answer IS Bill Gates.

Without knowing the SPECIFIC contributions of other parties, and any
corresponding remuneration, it isn't possible to get any clearer.

The "Bill Gates" example may not be the best example; I'll propose
another one that may be sufficiently abstract to work better.

Suppose there is a factory that produces television sets.  It is a
highly automated factory; no human beings are actually involved in the
PRODUCTION of television sets there.

The only staff at this factory are involved with:
a) Repair and maintainance of the automated equipment
b) Opening and closing the door for trucks that drive in to the
loading area to either drop off materials, or to pick up crates full
of TV sets.
c) Security - making sure nobody rips off any TV sets
d) Accounting

Who should receive benefit for the production of the television sets?

Any of the possibilities outside of the "owners of the factory" will
result in some very strange economic outcomes.

>>And, in a related question:
>>how do you justify the expiry of his copyrights and patents as anything
>>but (in your terms) an attack on the "right to life" of his heirs,
>>successors, and assigns?
>
>i know little about patent and copyright law.

If the creation of these intellectual rights is a "good thing," then
isn't the destruction of these rights an attack on "heirs et al.?"

>>Before you probe the difficult part of the whole issue and ask why
>>these obligations should be enforced by the state
>
>never mind that, where do they come from at all? who has the 
>right to impose them? why do you believe they exist?
>*that* is the heart of the matter.

I think he's asking the question in good faith - if you ask "Why
should the obligations be enforced by the state?", it is quite
possible that the answer will be "No reason at all."

>>>>Look, the laws that define and uphold the notion of property
>>>>espoused by the state exist as an empirical fact. The state does
>>>>quite explicitly define property and the rights attached to it.
>>>
>>>but it has no more right to do so than a stranger off the street
>>>has the right to tell you whom to marry. just because it seized that
>>>authority does not make this correct.
>>
>>Tell me who else would define property?
>
>the fallacy is yours.
>if you are claiming that no-one has the right to any property, which
>you seem to be doing, the best you can do is argue that no-one has
>the right to define it, not that the government should because no-one
>else would be better.

"Property rights" circumscribe who will has authority over property,
and who doesn't.  If there is no generally accepted definition, then
people will just go by the classic "Possession is nine points of the
law."

Someone will claim authority.  The only question that remains is who
that someone will be.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics