Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:14:38 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
 <93006.223848SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan7.065013.19631@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>

In article <1993Jan7.065013.19631@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:

>Governments don't invent or create property...the right to property exists
>as a right of the individual independent of the state...because

I thought you might take this line.

Your argument boils down to a "Platonic" view of property; just as an
ideal table exists, so does an ideal form of property. I don't really
disagree with you there, particularly if you substitute "relationship
with the physical world" for the word "property".

>The source of property is the individual, but I will concede that
>it is a complex matter of advocacy via legislatures and courts to
>define what is legitimate property.  However, a simple tyranny of the majority
>decision that something is not property, doesn't not mean something
>is not, in essence, property.

I think we actually agree here, although we would use different words.
As individuals, we have the relationships with the things around us
that form the basis of the notion of property. But legislatures and
courts-- these constitute the state. Of course, the citizens of a
democracy have the right and obligation to advocate for positive
changes to state policy. But defining "property" as a sensible,
productive ideological/legal tool of the state differs from defining it
as a fundamental right of the individual.

>I am sort of interested what your response is to a "9th amendment"
>position on property as an individual right.

Individual rights arise out of the characteristics of humanity. We all
have independently working brains: hence free thought and free speech.
We all distinguish between pain and pleasure; hence the right to
pursue happiness. We function (as far as we know) only when alive;
hence the right to life.

But we don't have the individual "right" to have the state implement a
particular policy towards our relation to the physical world, any more
than we have the "right" to demand the state recognise and license our
skills, as it now does for Doctors, Engineers, etc.. Of course, we do
have the right to implement policies which make sense, and I think most
of the current welfare state policies make sense; although a negative
income tax would make more.

The problem with a philosophical defence of property comes with the
criterion for the "ideal" notion of property rights. What relationship
between ourselves and the objects/ideas we claim to "own" fits this
ideal? Ultimately, the notion of Platonic property requires some
definition of the ideal relationship you seem to think you can describe
in the context of property.

A return question: how close do you think our current laws come?

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics