Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:38:48 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)
 <1993Jan3.072921.9716@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <Z8b=L6+@engin.umich.edu>
 <1993Jan4.000310.13273@athena.mit.edu>

Someone from the "right" noted that we "lefties" have been off the system
for this discussion. Personally, I have been working to hard to bother with
netnews, and besides, it is pretty hard to type when you're doubled over
laughing... but I'll do my best.

In article <1993Jan4.000310.13273@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M
Kozierok) says:
>
>In article <Z8b=L6+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony
>Young)
>writes:
>>
>>Charles M Kozierok responds:
>>>i have already explained *many* times the difference between protecting
>>>the right to something and forcing others to provide you with it.
>>>you may not like it, but there is a difference. i'm not going to
>>>keep repeating my arguments over and over.

Gerald never made this point: the distinction between "protecting the
right to something" and "forcing others to provide... it" depends
purely on viewpoint. The difference you cite therefore does not
exist.

An example: a farmer fences off a path through "his" land (I'll
explain the quotes later) that I use as a short cut. From the
farmer's point of view, this protects his property; from mine,
it forces me to walk a mile out of my way in order to provide him
with untrodden land.

I will go further: the nature of rights means that in order to be
articulated, a right must require a change in someone's behaviour
they do not want to make. For a (ridiculous) example, I might have
a "right" not to have to watch a person with a dread of heights
voluntarily bungee jumping off the CN tower. I will never have
to articulate this right, however, because nobody with a fear of
heights ever will jump off the CN tower. Nobody articulates a
right (the strongest form of claim existing) unless they have a need
(or a want) that requires someone else to do (or not do) something
against their inclinations.

>i'll address your argument below. but the argument between Gerald and
>myself had (note past tense) to do more with his obtuse claims about
>objectivism being "fundamentalist" (in the negative sense) and "anti-
>democratic" (which is ludicrous), and his ridiculous notions about
>rights and how their conflicts are resolved.

For a past argument, you can't seem to let go of it. It's made some
pretty amusing reading.

>the simple answer is: in *theory* i would support your right to opt out of
>any system where you wanted to take your chances without paying for
>the service, as long is it did not violate my right to life or freedom.

The feudalism versus taxes argument has far too limited a scope.

Consider this: in about AD 1600, no notion of intellectual property
existed. All literature then (and going back to the mists of time)
stemmed from the desire of the writers to create, or the pleasure
of their patrons (which patrons included governments). Over the
four hundred years since then, more and more governments have
subscribed to a notion called "intellectual property"; the idea
(invention) of copyright (also patent, trademark, etc.).

Now intellectual property makes sense as an instrument; like the
US constitution says, it "encourages... the useful arts". But the
claim that intellectual property represents a fundamental right
does not make sense. Governments invented intellectual property.
They invented it partly out of a genuine desire to encourage
and reward creativity, partly out of a desire to make creative
people (artists, writes, inventors) into stakeholders in the
economic order by making creativity into an investment. But
motives aside, they invented it.

At the same time (mostly out of decency) they disinvented another
form of property-- slavery-- that had endured since before the
dawn of written history.

And in those two government acts, both reasonable and wise, we see
the reality: if we need property to be free, we need government to
be free, because government (alone) defines and creates our notions
of property.

Given that reality, the resentment against the welfare state appears
irrational: the state sets the rules for property, because the state
invented property. There fore the state may (and I would argue, the
state out to) arrange its invention so that it does not reduce part
of the population to a state of complete dependence.

You can argue that the current welfare state does not do a good job,
and I agree; I believe the negative income tax would help people
avoid the indignity of dependence on government. But that, as you
said, does not amount to a philosophical argument; it treats only
ways and means, or instruments.

The philosophical argument remains: you can not classify property as
an essential for freedom unless you regard the state as necessary
for freedom. And if you regard the state as the source of human freedom
(I don't know anybody who believes that), then you still can't argue
against welfare, for having given freedom, the state would surely have
the right to take it away.

So there you have it: if we consider the source of property (the state)
we can't make property "rights" into fundamental human rights, unless
we accept the state as a source of human rights. What does that leave
us? Life (for which we don't need property), liberty (ditto), and
the pursuit of happiness.

I await your reply with interest. One word only: don't assume the
arguments I have quoted represent the only defence of my central
premise I have to offer. I have enough examples proving the nature
of property as a state invention to defend my stronghold for quite
a while. And to defuse a couple of salvos: yes, humans have a
relationship to the physical world, We transform it (we don't
"create" things ex nihilo), we use it, we form emotional bonds
with parts of it. We should not confuse the state concept of
"property" with the vast array of ties that bind us to the physical
world. Indeed, property represents a gross reduction of these
complex ties: the pot I threw, the coat I wear, the software I
wrote, all get reduced to "mine". I was C. S. Lewis (Screwtape
Letters) who pointed out that "mine" in that sense really invokes
a "right" to wantonly destroy something.

Also, for what it's worth, being a Christian, I argue from a Christian
perspective.

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