From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:23:56 GMT

In article <Y2d=t7@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>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.
>
>Followup line changed to can.politics and talk.politics.theory.  I don't
>read the latter group, so I will only follow in cp.

OK.

>>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.
>
>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.

>>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.
>
>Where there is only one person, there is no need for morality.  Only
>when there are many living together in a society does the need for morality
>arise.  Since society is necessary for morality and compromise is
>necessary for society, compromise is relevent to morality.

i disagree. multiple people living together require morality. the
use of the word "society" is suspect. i don't know that society is
necessary for morality. i know that morality is necessary for society.

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.

>>>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? 
>
>I'll amend it to say "no _concrete_ action that is _a priori_
>inappropriate."  Of course, the abstract action "offend the citizens"
>is inappropriate by definition.
>
>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?

>>>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.
>>
>It comforts you to think that your morality is based on something that
>has some sort of empirical existance.  I do not require such comfort.

of course not -- you are willing to tolerate persecution of the
minority. i am not.

so what is your morality based on? whim? every morality is based on
something. what comforts you?

>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?

>>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.
>
>If the citizens are not morally offended by their own murders, then
>their murders are appropriate -- except insofar as their murders offend
>us.

that's not going to get you very far. what if the government
decides to kill everyone named "Mark Anthony Young"? what if
the government first spends 10 years convincing the public that
Mark Anthony Youngs are responsible for all of the evils in society,
and that they are "subhuman" and "deserve to be exterminated",
even though that is a lie? or what if the public felt that
way already due to historical prejudice? in this case the citizens
would not be morally offended. should i get out the gallows?

>Why is it OK that millions of insects are killed daily, but not
>OK that people are killed?  It is simply because the death of a person
>offends us, but the death of an insect does not.

too simplistic. unless you want to equate humans and insects,
i do not. deal with the case immediately above. that will be sufficient.

>>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.
>
>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!"?

you underestimate the power of the government. again, the government
can do *anything* it wants as long as "the people" (please tell me
which people, it's not like we have ever had 100% agreement on
anything) are not offended? come on.

>Basing rights on individuality subjugates the weak to the strong.  The 
>strong have the power to protect themselves, while the weak must rely
>on society as a whole.  Government is society incorporated.  I am not
>interested in defending individualism -- I am interested in defending
>people.

this makes little sense to me.

>>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...
>
>When I wrote of being a Feudalist, I was not being sincere.  I was
>taking your argument to an extreme (and you agreed with that extreme,
>in theory at least -- hey!  what about my contention that the problem
>of defending rights was simply a pragmatic objection to Feudalism?).
>
>I am now telling you that I do not consider myself a superior human
>being.

who does? having superior knowledge does not imply general superiority.

>I do not think _my_ morality is special in any way to anyone
>but _me_.

then who cares about it? i'm sure Charles Manson feels the same way
about his.

>Therefore I recognize the validity of government doing
>things that I consider wrong -- but only when it is supported by
>the morality of other people.

then would you have had no problem with Nazi Germany?

>At the same time, I leave my options
>open by retaining my option to rebel against my society.

irrelevant. what are you going to do, scream insults at them
as they drag you away gagged and bound to your death?

>That is what I believe.  Every person is responsible to both themself
>and their society.  When these responsibilities conflict, there is
>no way out for the person.  The doctrine of individuality says that
>the person must consider themself before their society.  I say that,
>in my humble morality, that is wrong.

you are making less and less sense to me. sorry, not trying
to be rude, i just don't get it.

>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>You misunderstand me.  I said nothing of majority rule.  I spoke
>only of offence.  If the government offers no offence to any of
>its people, nor to any of its neighbours, how can it be said to
>be immoral, regardless of its form.

you keep saying "the people". who are "the people"?
what if 49% of the people are offended and 51% are not? or do
you require consensus? please explain yourself.

>You find any form of government other than democracy offensive.
>You find simple majority rule offensive.

of course i do. why shouldn't i? i have explained my reasons.
what is *your* definition of "the people"?

>By simple logical
>operations, we can thus infer that only a government that is
>democratic and has some protection against majority rule has
>even a remote chance of being inoffensive to everyone.  Since
>very many people feel the same way (hey, me too!), it seems
>likely that such a form of government will be the least 
>inappropriate one around.  Congratulations.

wow. what a paragraph. reminds me of a Klein bottle.
i *know* there's a circular argument hiding in there somewhere,
but i just can't figure out exactly where.

you are saying that the people
will support the creation of a government which allows
for the protection of minority rights. but what if the majority
doesn't support the protection of minority rights? then you
are back where you started. and that is usually what happens.

and even if am wrong, and they support minority rights, what
if they change their mind? by your definition, the "lack
of offense by the government" is what dictates behavior
to the government. there are no absolutes. so the protection
of rights of the minority is just a privelege granted by
the majority, not a right at all.

>>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.
>
>Even if the majority finds it just and proper that the minority
>be put to death, I assume the minority has a very different view.
>I expect that they would be _very_ offended by the notion, and 
>thus make up for the lamentable lack of empathy amongst their
      ^^^^^^^
>concitoyens (= co-citizens).  More offence doesn't mean "more 
>people offended", but rather "people offended more".

how exactly are they supposed to "make up" for anything as
they are dragged to the gallows with your government saying
"it is the will of 'the people'"?
should they carry placards saying "i protest" to their execution?
i don't understand this at all.

>>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.
>
>Thankyou.  I hope I've cleared up all misconceptions, so we can get
>back to calling each other immoral bastards :-).

unfortunately, you're making that more and more tempting... :^)
but i see no need to get rude at this point.

--
charles
Newsgroups: can.politics