From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:10:11 GMT

In article <#Jf=NL+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <Y2d=t7@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>>If I choose to advance my survival by stealing from you, I am violating
>>>your right not to be prevented from advancing your survival.  Unless, of
>>>course, you have far more than you need for your survival.
>>
>>ah, nice argument (aren't we getting darn cozy).
>>
>>but who defines how much i need and how much you need?
>>
>>the rights to property are a subset of the rights to survival and flow
>>directly from the right to life. on what basis do you violate them?
>>if you say "because i need to" then you are not an advocate of
>>individualism at all.
>
>I am _not_ an advocate of individualism -- at least not as you seem to
>understand it.

then how do *you* understand it?

>When I steal from the rich to feed myself, my defence is
>necessity

necessity has no basis in a system of individual rights and responsibilities,
as i see it. we just disagree on this. 

>and my lawyer will spit back your words at you:  "the right
>_not to be prevented_" from advancing my own survival.

ah, but the right not to be prevented means by the intervention of
others. you cannot extend it to not being prevented in any situation.
well you can, but it isn't consistent with individual rights as i see them.

>If your right to
>property truly flows, as you have said, from the right to survival, then
>the fact that I left you with enough to survive on is sufficient defence.

but as i pointed out you have no right to decide what i need to survive.
if you allow this kind of subjective undermining of the right to property,
the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

>This is not my position, but my interpretation of your position.  You
>have justified your right to property through a right to survive, yet
>deny that my right to survive in any way impinges on your right to
>property.  Since property is only a derived right, I don't see how it
>can supercede axiomatic rights.

i see your point, but you take too narrow a view of my position.
my position is based upon the fundamental view that humans are individuals
and have the right to make what they can for themselves and be left alone
to do it, or *voluntarily* associate, trade or interact with others.
your interpretation of the right to survival includes a breach of the
fundamental right to freedom, and to not have to support others involuntarily.

>It is my position that it is nature that decides how much you need
>and how much I need, and our society that decides whether and how much
>your right to property should be infringed to support my right to
>survive, and that that is a right and proper function of society.

i disagree. please tell me how what you describe above is any different
than classic socialism, and tell me *why* you think society has the
right to do this to me.

>If
>one or the other of us does not like it, we can leave and find a new
>society more to our liking.

"America -- love it or leave it" has never been a very compelling
philosophical argument. we are discussing what we think *should be*,
not what is. maybe you didn't intend to say that; sorry if so.

>It's sort of a "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to
>the death your right to say it" situation.

not really. because in the latter case an individual's right is
being protected -- the right to free speech. in the former case
i see no right being protected. the government has no rights.

>I may not like the rules
>that the gov't has set up for redistributing wealth, but I believe that
>it is within its legitimate interests to make those rules.

why?

>>i still don't see the point anyway. compromise only is necessary because
>>not all people agree. i am discussing the merits of a society where
>>all people promote the same moral standard. i know this will never
>>happen, but that is irrelevant to the discussion, which is theoretical.
>>
>Oh, if that's the case, then my system is perfect.  Everyone has 
>_exactly_ the same morality, so there is absolutely nothing the
>government can do that offends anyone unless it offends everyone.
>Therefore, the government's course of action is clear.
>
>But that's not the way you've been arguing, if you'll forgive me.  You've
>been arguing that certain actions by the government are immoral; in
>particular, taxing people to provide welfare.  You have been arguing in
>favour of your morality as a basis for legitimate government.  Gerald
>has been doing the same from a different set of premises.  I have been
>putting my poor efforts at arguing that legitimate government is 
>government that respects as much as possible the morality of _all_ its
>citizens.  I know that my efforts are poor because you and Gerald keep
>on telling me I'm in favour of genocide.

first of all, i don't think you are in favor of genocide. i'm sorry
if i led you to misinterpret me, though i think much of that is a leap
on your part. more on this later.

i understand what you are saying. the argument of objective vs. subjective
government is primarily intended to prevent the perversion over time of
the government by those who don't understand its original purpose,
or who would bend it to their needs. this is the problem that i have
with your definitions.

>>>Note that this does not mean that there are no actions that are
>>>inappropriate for any human government (see my response to Gerald
>>>concerning the mistreatment of dissidents) -- just that such actions
>>>are inappropriate because they offend humans.
>>
>>which humans though? what if they are offensive to 49,999,999 humans
>>and not offensive to 50,000,001 humans?
>
>************************************************************************
>The number of people that are _not offended_ is irrelevent.

it may appear to be so, but it's an illusion, and here's why.
let's suppose the government has decided not to do X because the
"total offense" is high enough, as you have suggested. the next
thing that will happen is that many of those who were *not* offended
when they thought the government was going to do X are offended *now*
(the third group is of course those who don't care either way).
so now what does the government do? 

the no-win situation you describe below happens all the time.
that is the difficulty in morality and government. not the simple cases
where "offense" is easy to figure out. i'm sure you know what i mean.

>The number
>of people that _are offended_ is relevent, as is the _extent_ of _each
>person's_ offence taken.  
>
>Have you taken calculus?

more than i care to admit.

>Let x be the amount of offence an individual
>feels, and n(x) the number of people that feel that amount of offence.
>The total offence taken is then integral(0 to infinity)(x * n(x))dx.
>Clearly, it makes absolutely no difference whether n(0) is 10 or 
>10 billion:  it just doesn't add anything to the total offence.

this may be overly simplified. because one person can only raise his
voice so loud. and under this situation, if one person is despised,
perhaps because he "was born with the mark of the devil" or some such
nonsense, and the rest of society has denigrated him to the point where
he feels he has no right to live any more, he would be summarily killed
with no "offense" taken by anybody, maybe not even him. i say that
would still be wrong. as i'm sure you would too. i'm not saying you
advocate the man's death; but rather that your system has a hole
you should explain.

>************************************************************************
>
>Democracy plays no part in morality.  You cannot change my feelings
>by out-voting me.  In your example, 50 million people are offended by
>the action.  If anything near 50 million people are _offended by _not_
>taking the action_, then you have a dangerously polarized society, and
>a government that is in a NO-WIN SITUATION.  Whatever it decides will
>be inappropriate.

but it still has to decide.
so how should it do it?

>If possible, the society should be split into two
>more homogeneous societies -- the Czecho-Slovak solution.  If it is
>not possible -- the Bosnian situation -- then there is really no
>legitimate government possible, and people will have to muddle along
>as best they can.  In time maybe an understanding will arise.  One
>can always hope.

point taken. but if democracy plays no part in morality, then how
do you decide the will of the people? what is your alternative system?
"offense" is difficult to measure.

splitting into two societies is also not a solution, because there
are multiple unresolvable issues which overlap among people.
even two people can't agree on most things.

>>so what is your morality based on? whim? every morality is based on
>>something. what comforts you?
>>
>(I'm sorry for the "comfort" crack.  It was inappropriate.)

that's ok. don't worry about it. i can be inappropriate too sometimes.
after all, you *do* think that i think you are in favor of genocide. :^)

>My morality is based on that of my parents, on my upbringing, and on
>my sense of empathy.  I have not codified it.  I believe that the
>attempt to boil morality down to a few hard-and-fast principles is
>dangerous -- because only an approximation can be obtained that way,
>and thus damage is done to some of your initial moral principles.

and i would argue that whether you know it or admit it or not, your
philosophy *is* based on a few principles, because all rational
philosophies are. if you are able to argue the merits of your system,
*even if just for yourself*, then your morality *is* based on principles.
even if it is the degenerate principle "my philosophy is not based on
principles", which i suppose is a paradox of sorts.

>I draw comfort from the fact that many of my friends and family
>reflect my values.  I get discomfort from the fact that some of my
>friends and acquaintances disagree with my values.  But I do not
>then dismiss these people as immoral.  I know that they are trying
>to come to grip with a hard and imperfect world, and they are
>making the best sense of it they can.  If they have reached some
>conclusions that are different than mine, it is not necessarily
>them that are wrong.

first of all, i never called you immoral. i hope you were not implying
that i had. even if i had a morality that i felt was "better", that
would not necessarily mean that anyone with whom i argued was immoral.

and if i thought everyone else was wrong and i was right, i would
be doing the lecture circuit and writing books, not exchanging ideas
on the net. i am currently involved in another discussion on anarchism.
until last week i never thought i would consider even listening to
such arguments. i am listening.

>I investigate my values in light of these
>disagreements, and either strengthen or weaken my convictions.
>Since I am still learning my morality, it is premature to
>codify it.

our goals are similar. i too am still learning. but i understand
that whether i accept a new idea or not is based upon whether
it makes sense given the fundamentals that are currently sketched
in my mind. or i decide to change those absolutes. but everyone has
them.

>>>I know that my value system is no more privileged than anyone else's,
>>>but that does not stop me from believing in my value system -- I do so
>>>because it is mine, and it would be ridiculous for me to prefer
>>>anyone else's to my own.
>>
>>say what? why do you believe in it if you don't think it is superior
>>to the others out there?
>>
>Because it is mine, and my value system has caused me to build it
>that way.  This is not circular, it is merely recursive.

but there is a kernel upon which the recursion rests.

>>>I grant no such moral authority.  You aren't abstracting far enough.  No
>>>government has morality.  Only people have morality, and every person's
>>>morality is sovereign to that person.  The government cannot force its
>>>citizens not to be offended.  If the people are offended, then the
>>>government is doing something wrong.  
>>
>>so? they do things which are wrong all the time. the only power
>>you give to the people in this system is the ability to say
>>"the government is wrong! we are offended!"?
>>
>I have not outlined a system of government, as you seem to be saying.
>My understanding was that we were talking about what makes a government
>"legitimate", or what makes its actions "appropriate" or "moral".
>This is not the same as arguing political systems.  You seem to
>believe that the legitimacy of the government is bound up
>_intrinsically_ in its forms.  I believe that the legitimacy is
>bound up in its representation of the people through whatever form.

but the concept of "the people" is the problem. there is no such
thing as "the people". there is "no people", and "most people" and "all
people". even "50.1% of the people". but "the people" means nothing,
because it is impossible to define. your reliance on that phrase is the
central problem i have with your theory.

>>then would you have had no problem with Nazi Germany?
>
>I have plenty of problems with the Nazi government of Germany.

now *i* must apologize, for the poor phrasing of my question.
i didn't mean to suggest you would not have a problem with Nazi Germany,
but rather that your system of "integrated offense" would not.
that is all i am getting at -- a system such as that has no
safeguards built in against a Nazi Germany.

>My personal feelings are largely irrelevent, however, to a
>discussion of the legitimacy of that regime.  The regime was
>illegitimate because it offended "common decency", which is
>another term for the morality of the people in general.

there is no such thing as the "morality of the people in general".
because there is no such thing as "the people in general". it is too vague
to have a morality.

>That's all I'm arguing.  Gov'ment is legitimate to the extent
>that it respects common decency.

now we're at the central theme. and i still think the system
fails. because in many cases the "common decency" is what
is illegitimate. this is a touchy issue, so apologies in advance
to any Germans or others reading this who feel i may have mis-stepped; such
is not my intention.

in Nazi Germany there were many who opposed what
Hitler did. of this there is no doubt. but it is also true that
the overall "common decency" allowed what happened to happen. and
in other European countries, where anti-Semitism had raged covertly
for years, Hitler's solution was no problem at all for much of the
population.

this is the problem you must address: what if the "common decency"
is not decent? by your definition, the government must act out
the "will of the people". what if that will is morally wrong?
or what if the government influences the will of the people?

>>[A _lot_ of argumentation suggesting I'm in favour of
>> genocide deleted]

again, sorry, i never meant to suggest this. if you think about
it, you'll realize i meant your system doesn't prevent it, that's all.

>All of your arguments about minorities being oppressed are
>wrong.  You have attributed to me an axiom I don't have --
>that if less people are offended than are not offended, then
>the action is OK.

i have done no such thing. i have simply strived to expose
a weakness in your system. i simply didn't understand your
criteria for measuring "offense". i have explained my concerns
earlier in this post.

>You have also assumed that I think that
>people must bend to the will of their government.  Neither
>of these is the case.

by your definition legitimate government does what "the people" want. 
your "not bending" implies action against illegitimate government.
but my point is that the oppression of minorites is very possible
even under government which is legitimate by your definition.
and that is the real problem as i see it.

--
charles
Newsgroups: can.politics