From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:40:57 GMT

In article <93008.155604SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.105234.27450@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
>Morrison) says:
>
>>It seems that a few too many 'on the left' regard property as just an
>>invented, arbitrarily created right. Yet I don't hear them arguing
>>that 'the right not to be murdered' is merely an arbitrarily created
>>right.
>
>You want to think of property as a right. I consider property (in the
>form in which it exists in our society) a state institution. Does that
>mean you also want to disagree about the right to life? Or do you
>simply want to defend the idea of property as a right by linking it to
>the right to live, because you can't think of any really good arguments
>for property as a "right".

here is *my* answer, abbreviated due to time constraints.

the right to life is accepted as fundamental by most people. as
i have mentioned before, eventually *something* must be taken
as fundamental. the right to life is not a bad thing to take
as a given. under an individualist system, the right to life
means that you are not to prevented by violent action of others
from living.

the right to freedom flows from the right to life. it does so because
in order to live one's life in a system predicated upon individual
rights and responsibilities, one must have the right to live one's
life freely. this includes the right to take all actions in the support,
fulfillment and enjoyment of one's life. one has the right
to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, to benefit from one's work,
and to suffer the consequences of one's mistakes, laziness, or
misfortune. 

the right to property flows from the right to freedom. for under
a system based upon individualism one has the right to free action
to maintain one's life, and one who does not have the right to the
products of his effort, has no right to freedom and hence no
right to promote his life. if you take away one, the others disappear
as well. all property is, is the product of one's individual actions.
without the right to the product of individual action, the right
to individual action itself becomes moot. as does the right to life.

the three rights are quite consistent with each other, as i see them.
fire away.

>We both agree on the right to live.

see above.

>>If we can ignore philosophy for a moment, and look at de-facto 'rights':
>>ie what I have, and what I can do for myself. The 'right' to be
>
>Rights based on what I have or what I can do? That leaves, say
>profoundly retarded people in a pretty bad position. They can't
>defend themselves; have they any rights? You can kill them without
>any serious fuss; would that make it right?

no. they have the right to life and the freedom to promote themselves
to the best of their ability, without being prevented by violent
intervention, like anyone else. that does not mean that they
have the right to have others provide for them, however. because that
would be inconsistent with the rights to property, freedom, and life
of those others, and inconsistent with an individualistic system.

>>So I think that this argument that 'property is merely an invention
>>of state....etc' is a very flimsy one. Most of our notions of
>>morality are based on what we would not like others to do to us.
>
>You haven't yet addressed the question. You have come up with
>a number of basis for morality, but you haven't yet come up with
>a defence of property as a right.

please rip mine to shreds. it is actually pretty close to Rand's
definition.

>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.

>Now, that leaves you with two options: you can claim property
>rights based on state policy (in which case Southern US slave owners
>had "property rights" over African slaves until 1864),

"property rights" which violate the essence of freedom and the right
to one's own life are inherently contradictory and totally invalid.
slavery is completely foreign to any system that truly respects
individual rights.

>or you can
>claim (as Gerald has successfully argued) that an idealised
>concept of property (in the sense of our rights over the material
>world around us) exists. But Gerald and I haven't agreed that our
>current laws coincide with this ideal. In fact, we agree that our
>laws differ from the ideal, although how much they differ, and in
>what direction, remains a subject for debate.

i suppose so, though this last P didn't make a lot of sense to me.

--
charles