From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:44:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.034135.8096@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:


|> The results of your labor are not the same thing as the property itself.
|> For instance, if you build a house, there are 2 inputs to that house --
|> your labor, and the trees you cut down.  If you become a farmer, you
|> have put labor into the final harvest.  But you have also used land.
|> 
|> You shouldn't be taxed on the labor you put into it (except for those
|> things we all agree are legitimate functions of government, like law
|> enforcement), but you *should* be for using resources.  IMHO, of course.

   This is a truly bizzare dichotomy you are setting up here, and I'm
having trouble understanding it... Labor is to energy as property is to
matter. You cannot divorce one from the other. What I cannot fathom is
how you extract benefit from disembodied action without retaining the 
result of the action. Action, unto itself is meaningless. It is the
results imparted onto the materials which are relevent to mans life.
   To loosely use your analogy, it would seem that you would be able to
retain your sweat for plowing a field but not the grain it grew. That's
a very comforting thought.
   If you take your life as the basis of value, then it is impossible
to setup a life sustaining set of actions which do not recognize property.
By definition, life is consumptive. You cannot have it both ways: either
you eat that donut or I do (but I'd give it to you since I'm on a diet ;-)
When conflicts arise, there must be arbitration. In primitive society
that arbitration amounted to whomever had the biggest club. In a society
which respects individual rights, property and a method of obtaining
property replaces the arbitrary club. First come first served is a 
reasonable arbiter since it rewards the person who took positive action
at the expense of the those who did not. A system which inverts claims
(toward the unacting) is trying to reverse cause and effect: life sustaining
activity requires _action_ not inaction. The consequence of _inaction_ is
death.

|> [ out of original sequence...]
|> You're starting with the basic assumption that just because no one has
|> claimed that property, the individual who gets there first has the right
|> to take it and call it their own.  And then use force to defend this claim.
|> I disagree.  (Or, more precisely, I disagree because there is a finite amount 
|> of property in the world.  If there were enough for everyone, I'd agree.)

   In fact, resources are effectively unlimited. The universe is a big
place. This does not mean that all things are equally accessible, but
to say that 'what we got now is all we ever got' is patently false. The
only thing between us (man) and it (resources) is our own ingenuity --
a renewable resource.
   So now do you agree :^)

-- 


		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc