Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:01:09 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)
 <1993Jan8.224057.15019@athena.mit.edu> <93010.220001SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan11.070424.2916@athena.mit.edu>

In article <1993Jan11.070424.2916@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M
Kozierok) says:

>>Given a system where
>>property governs all interactions with the physical world, and given
>>that we can't live without interacting with the physical world (housing,
>>food, etc.), then we need property for life, and thus we can defend the
>>right to property, as long as we justify the system that makes property
>>(as governments define it in AD 1992, without slavery and with copyright).
>
>this does not make sense to me.

Obviously, we can't find out where we disagree about property until we
understand each other's a definition of property. I will include mine,
and I would like to see yours.

Property, noun, 1) a relationship between people and material items,
regulated by a system of law and custom, 2) the material that forms
a part of this relationship.

As I have said in other posts, I agree that some relationship to the
material world constitutes a necessity of life, but I don't accept that
the current "system of law and custom" represents the only arrangement
compatible with "human life" (as either I or objectivists would define
that expression).

>however, its irrelevant where the property comes from. it only
>matters what is and what is not considered a legal form of obtaining
>ownership. by your definition we have no rights to our own bodies
>either, and therefore no moral reason to object to slavery. after all,
>we didn't "make" our bodies, or our minds for that matter.

Well, we do "make" ourselves to some extent; I consider myself (flawed
as I am) at least partly a product of my own moral choices.

>the concept of ownership based on effort is used to explain one
>reasonable method of obtaining ownership. gift might be another,
>or inheritance, and perhaps theft and extortion are considered
>not reasonable. no doubt you will have a problem with the use of
>the word reasonable. fine--next round. but "where it comes from"
>makes no difference unless you want to abolish the concept of
>ownership altogether. is that what you are getting at?

But you link property to life through the concept of effort. Take the
fruits of my work, and you take the part of my life that that work
represented. You can extend that to gifts and to trade; I have, after
all, the right to dispose of the fruits of my work (my life) as I
wish. Inheritance constitutes a more problematic case.

But you can't claim to "own" the sin, the wind, the air, the patent on
the photo-synthesis reaction, or the rights to William Shakespeare's
plays. All these form (inevitably, I would argue) a common pool of
resources.

Look at it this way. A farmer sows and reaps, and brings in a crop.
That crop exists partly because of the farmer's effort, and you I
do not question the moral right of the farmer to profit from the
work involved. But the crop also exists because of a multitude of
factors which the farmer did not create: farmers do not, after all,
create crops from nothing. And many of the raw materials (such as
the sun and the air) they use "belong" to nobody.

>>But their helplessness and need does not render them less individuals.
>
>doesn't render them *more* individuals either, does it?
>
>>And there we see the flaw in your definition of "individualism". I
>>consider the obligations I have to others a fundamental part of my
>>individuality.
>
>why do you have these obligations? who imposed them? how are they
>justified?

God imposed them. That's my short answer. If you don't believe in
God, well, God still believes in you.

But I can argue for the sense of obligation without proving the existence
of a deity. Consider this: the sum of my property includes many (in fact
most) things I did not create and have little control over. I acquired
these things partly through my own effort, partly through the effort of
others (as gifts or commerce), but largely through the operation of nature.
I can't justify my "ownership" of the part of my property the represent as
a consequence of my effort. I therefore believe that if I use resources I
did not (by my own effort) create, I have an obligation to share them.
I understand this in a Christian sense: God made the universe and me, and
God's Law demands I not neglect the poor and helpless. But I can justify
this attitude without referring to my religious faith. I accept that we
own the products of our efforts. I assert an obligation to share that
which we have that does not stem from our efforts.

>first, you are justifying your position by likening it to
>something about which i have never commented, as if i had. for all you
>know, i don't support copyright law.

Copyright law forms the basis for an existing type of property; in
fact, (Canadian) copyright law justifies its property claims in
exactly the same form that you do: Canada defines copyright as "a right
inherent in creation".

But copyright expires fifty years after the death of the author, which
means that the work enters the public domain (read: social property).
If you don't support this interesting arrangement (why should books
revert to the public domain fifty years after their creation? Houses
and factories certainly don't), then you don't completely agree with
the notion of property as we currently define it. In which case, going
back to the start of this discussion, how do you define property?

>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.

Nope. Even if we recognise property as a right, we still have to decide
what we can (and can not) consider property (human beings no, ideas yes),
exactly what rights attach to property, what sanctions we intend to
impose for violating these rights, and so on. Even objectivists accept
that governments may legitimately express and enforce these decisions.
By doing so (with laws against burglary, trespass, etc.), governments
do shape, and to that extent define, property. And since nobody else
can legitimately use the kind of force that governments do, only
governments can define property in that sense.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics