Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:56:04 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)
 <1993Jan8.042007.20526@csi.uottawa.ca> <93008.020107SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan8.105234.27450@ee.ubc.ca>

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".

We both agree on the right to live.

>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?

And do you consider that a flaw in your argument? If not, I never want to
live in your society, regardless of how "successful" it is.

>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.

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.
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), 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.

>Rights ultimately do not stem from force, because continued maintenance
>of force is impossible. It can only be applied for so long, before
>one makes enough enemies, and in turn they destroy you. Any short
>term gains from force, cheating etc. is eventually lost. THerefore,
>not worth doing.

Right.

Now we agree, let's disagree. I see nothing to prove that our current
notions of property (based on state law and ideology) coincide with
any set of fundamental human rights over the material world.

By the way, I suggest you save bandwidth by NOT quoting my signature,
unless you have some comment to make about it. After all, the
telephone lines (and the disk space) on the network don't belong to
either of us. :-)

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