Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:51:34 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Human Rights...

>    Thomas O. Smith writes:
>
>>Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain
>>basic human rights. An important purpose of government is to 
>>insure that these rights are protected for all citizens regardless
>>of social or economic status. To do this, ......[deleted].....
>>And that is why governments have the moral right to impose
>>taxes. ....[deleted].....
>
>
>     You are correct, humans do have certain inaliable rights. These
>being defined by the founders of our country to be life, and the
>protection of private property. These rights are not based on race
>sex, creed, or economic status. What you propose is that the 
>`rights' of the poor are more viable than the rights of those that
>are self sufficient! That is not to say that the poor should be
>abandoned, but there are private charities to help them. Why should
>the poor have the `right` to some of my paycheck when I payed my
>way through college to earn a higher living? You seem to be
>confusing `rights' and wants. NO ONE has a right to a better 
>standard of living, a great job or a new home. They may well desire
>these things very much but these are not rights and should be
>earned by them.
 
I never said people have a right to a higher standard of living at your
expense.  What I did say was that people posess certain inalienable
rights, and that the duty of government is to protect those rights. 
Because government has this duty, it also has the right to impose taxes
to pay for the instruments needed to enforce those rights (courts,
police, schools, etc.).  If you thought I meant that the poor have a
right to governmental largesse, then clearly I misspoke.  The government
has the right to impose taxes only so far as to support the cost of
ensuring basic rights.

>   Government has no rights! Government is a loose collection of
>individuals whos actions are guided by the constitution. Since
>when does a loose collection of people have a right to your 
>paycheck? If you choose to give it to them , fine. The government
>was instituted to PROTECT the rights of individuals regarding life
>and property. What you propose is to invert this to the point 
>where the individual needs protection from government in order to
>keep his property. Otherwise any `disadvantaged' group of 
>individuals (everyone is disadvantaged in one form or another) gave
>have free reign on my, yours, or your relatives paychecks.

No, government is an institution granted institutional power by the
people to wield over the people, to ensure that one segment of the
people do not take away the rights of another segment.  In doing so, the
people inherantly grant government the right to levy taxes so as to be
able to carry out its mandate.  Without the means, the government cannot
carry out the will of the people.  Therefore, the clear implication is
that the people grant the right to tax to the government so long as that
right is not abused.

>    Please think about how much power you are giving another
>institution and how much freedom you are losing when you allow
>Government to claim that they have a `right' to rape your wallet.
>
> Jeff

the very purpose of government is to create an institution with exactly
the powers you criticize it for having.  You can't have it both ways. 
Either you acknowledge that inalienable rights exist, and the government
has the right to do what is necessary to protect them, or you deny the
existance of inalienable human rights and accept that rights are defined
by personal power.  Libertarianism is the expression of the latter
concept.  I am a firm believer in the former.



     
					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.econ