From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:51:49 GMT

Mark -- we really should move this off the Canada groups. it is a pure
philosophical discussion now. let me know what you think and we can change
the followup line.

In article <QXd=Zw@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>as i have said, there is a distinction. you know what it is, because
>>you refer to it below. whether it is arbitrary or not is another
>>quesion. but there is a distinction.
>
>I know _that_ it is, but I'm fuzzy on _what_ it is.  What it boils
>down to, tho', is that it is immoral for the government to feed the
>poor, but moral for it to lock up social deviants.

very briefly, the distinction is based upon the principle of non-violation.
if someone sticks a knife in your chest, that is direct action in violation
of your rights *by someone else*, and the government has a responsibility
to act against it. same if someone steals your food. in both cases someone
else is interfering with your attempt to sustain your life.

lack of competence to advance one's *own* survival by proactively providing
oneself with basic necessities does not represent anyone else violating
one's rights or preventing that one from attempting to sustain life.
the distinction is not arbitrary. it is based on the
premise of individualism, which includes individual responsibility for
advancement of survival, and the right not to be prevented from said
advancement.

the thing you mention it "boils down to" is an unfortunate result
of that distinction. but *all* distinctions have downsides. and as i
mentioned before, there are factors in place, such as private charity,
which act to decrease the problem.

>>>I guess I have one other point.  I think your distinction is totally
>>>arbitrary.
>>
>>well, it isn't. it is based on a particular set of premises. you
>>obviously just disagree with those premises. 
>>
>I don't see how the premises you've given (rights only deal with
>doing unto, not for; people have a right to their property) lead 
>to the conclusion you've stated many times now.

i hope the above is a start. also -- which conclusion in particular
do you have a problem with?

>Also the set of
>premises you have is arbitrary (Gerald has a different set).

my premises are based upon a specific way of looking at how i believe
humans should act. every philosophy is based upon arbitrary premises,
as i already said.

>>the rest of your post deals with pragmatism. that is fine.
>>i have no problems with pragmatism. i just don't think it
>>is relevant to a philosophical discussion of rights.
>>and if you recall, i already said i supported a pragmatic position,
>>but that that was not relevant to the points at hand.
>
>The rest of my post did not _deal_ with pragmatism, but rather
>advanced it as a basis for deciding what actions are appropriate
>for governments (and citizens) to undertake.

well, the gist of it was that the government must pragmatically
act for its citizens, which you re-iterate below, and that compromise
is necessary to live in a society. the government issue is dealt
with further down.

on compromise, i have *never* said that compromise
wasn't necessary in the real world (i am married :^).
the real world has flaws. but this is a philosophical discussion, and again,
i don't think compromise is relevant. i am not trying to discuss a political
system, but rather a moral or philosophical one.

>In effect, I've said
>that there is no action that is _a priori_ inappropriate for a
>government. 

we have different views on government. that is already clear.
are you *sure* that you feel there is *no* action that is a priori
inappropriate for a government? 

>In effect, and now as before in as many words, I am
>saying that there are no such things as "fundamental human rights".
>"Human rights" is a social construct, and "rights" is a legal
>concept.

i cannot agree with that. i cannot prove that you are wrong, just
that it conflicts with the foundation of my beliefs. i would no sooner
try to argue at that level than i would try to prove that God either does
or does not exist.

i also don't like the implications of "human rights as a social construct".
for one thing, it is *very* easy to project that foundation into a
nasty implementation such as exist in many of the oppressive regimes
currently "socially constructing" their citizens to death around the
world.

basing rights on law subjugates the people to the government, not the other
way around. very nasty, and hard to defend if you have any interest
in defending individualism in any way. even if you ignore individualism,
you basically grant moral authority to whoever is in power at the moment.
which sounds like either anarchy or maybe even a monarchy of some sort.
this would seem to conflict with
many of the things you have said. please be more clear on where you
actually stand -- your various strawmen have me a little confused when
i try to interpret your real position, i.e. i don't know how much
of your earlier posts are straw...

>I'll say it again:  government action is inappropriate only to
>the extent that it offends the morality of its citizens(*) or (to
>a lesser but non-zero extent) the morality of the citizens of 
>neighbouring states.  The greater the offence, the more
>inappropriate the action.
>
>(*) for "citizens" you can substitute "people under its control"
>to generalize to nations that don't give equal citizenship to
>everyone living in that country -- which is every country to
>some degree or another.

too wishy-washy for me. simple majority rule is not the basis for
a valid government. it is just the mob in a fancy building.
in many societies there are groups which have been persecuted
with no moral offense taken by the majority of citizens. by your
definition the government is not acting inappropriately in putting them
to death. you should really explain the paragraphs above better.
i give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that
*i* must be missing something, because i can't believe you would
stand for something so easily refuted. it isn't consistent with the
quality of your thoughts so far.

--
charles