From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Individualism & the Common Weal
Organization: International Irony League -- Death before smileys!
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:53:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.181759.6528@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.195018.13629@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com
>(Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>
>>  Good will. The opposite choice (which is force) is illegitimate,
>>and does not work.
>
>I've asked this before, but I will try again: since owning property is
>based on the use of force, why is force an illegitimate when it taxes
>property?  Stated in another way, without the government, you have no
>property except what you can defend with your own private force.
>Given that you would rather live where you are than in Bosnia, why is
>it looting when the government takes your property in taxes?  It is
>the government which defined that property as yours in the first place.
>"My property" is a *legal* definition, and without government, there
>are no laws and hence no legal properties.
>
>What I am saying in various was is, Render unto Caesar that which is
>Caesar's.  Or at least find an argument that it isn't Caesar's.

I would disagree with your premise, namely that owning property
is inherently based on the use of force.

Let me draw an analogy: All of us have inherent freedom of
speech. (Do we agree on this?) Given that, it is still true that
force is sometimes necessary to protect that freedom of speech.
If someone tries to stuff a gag in my mouth (literally or
figuratively), I may have to use force to protect my rights from
being violated. The government protects my freedom of speech; to
use your terms, without the government, I have no freedom of
speech except what I can defend with my own private force. This
doesn't change the fact that I have a natural right to speak
freely. The government can't say, "You would have no freedom of
speech without our intervention; therefore, we tell you that your
freedom of speech doesn't apply to this topic, or that one."
(Actually, they *can* say this, and they often do; but they have
no moral right to do so.)

Precisely the same reasoning applies to the right to property.
Granted, I may have to use force to protect my property; and
granted, the government has been set up to use force to protect
property, thus freeing the owners from having to do so. But that
doesn't change the fact that I have a natural right to property.
The government has no moral right to say, "You have your property
only because we protect it for you; therefore, we can take it
away from you at will."

As Thom Jefferson said, we are "endowed by our Creator with
certain unalienable rights... [and] among these are Life,
Liberty, and Property." (Dec'n of Independance, first draft) Our
right to own property is inherent and inalienable; the fact that
the government helps us enforce that right doesn't mean that we
cede any of the right to it.
-- 
Andrew M. Solovay    "I've learned a secret about keeping house... after
                      four years, the dust doesn't get any thicker."
                                        --Quentin Crisp