From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:04:24 GMT

In article <93010.220001SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.224057.15019@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M
>Kozierok) says:
>
>>the right to freedom flows from the right to life. it does so because
>>in order to live one's life in a system predicated upon individual
>>rights and responsibilities, one must have the right to live one's
>>life freely. this includes the right to take all actions in the support,
>>fulfillment and enjoyment of one's life. one has the right
>>to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, to benefit from one's work,
>>and to suffer the consequences of one's mistakes, laziness, or
>>misfortune.
>>
>>the right to property flows from the right to freedom. for under
>>a system based upon individualism one has the right to free action
>>to maintain one's life, and one who does not have the right to the
>>products of his effort, has no right to freedom and hence no
>>right to promote his life. if you take away one, the others disappear
>>as well. all property is, is the product of one's individual actions.
>>without the right to the product of individual action, the right
>>to individual action itself becomes moot. as does the right to life.
>
>The circle here (and it does work as a classic example of "objectivist"
>circular argument) comes with the word "system". The rights determine
>the system, while the system justifies the rights.

OK, now i see your objection. but the rights flow from the right to
life, which isn't based on a system. it just is.

>Given a system where
>property governs all interactions with the physical world, and given
>that we can't live without interacting with the physical world (housing,
>food, etc.), then we need property for life, and thus we can defend the
>right to property, as long as we justify the system that makes property
>(as governments define it in AD 1992, without slavery and with copyright).

this does not make sense to me.

>But I have yet to see a justification for the idea that this form of
>property constitutes the only way a person can have access to the
>"products of his (sic) effort". I shall point out two fallacies
                  ^^^^^
oh, *please* excuse my grammatic imperfection... 

>with this statement. First, and most obvious: we claim ownership of
>a vast array of things we could never make. We own land, although we
>can not make an acre of land (yes, we can change it; in some cases
>drastically). We buy food, although food comes to us through the action
>of the sun, the rain (we can't even duplicate most of the chemical
>reactions that allow plants to grow on any scale). We own cars, although
>we can not "make" an atom of steel. So this justification of property
>as a result of effort fails. If property rights stem from creation, you
>might as well accept the Christian statement that "the Earth is the
>Lord's, and the fullness thereof".

other than the arrogant "sic" crack, that's an interesting point.
however, its irrelevant where the property comes from. it only
matters what is and what is not considered a legal form of obtaining
ownership. by your definition we have no rights to our own bodies
either, and therefore no moral reason to object to slavery. after all,
we didn't "make" our bodies, or our minds for that matter.

the concept of ownership based on effort is used to explain one
reasonable method of obtaining ownership. gift might be another,
or inheritance, and perhaps theft and extortion are considered
not reasonable. no doubt you will have a problem with the use of
the word reasonable. fine--next round. but "where it comes from"
makes no difference unless you want to abolish the concept of
ownership altogether. is that what you are getting at?

>Secondly, you don't define "right to". I can only assume you mean the
>rights which attach to the current (state) definition of property. Now,
>leaving aside the numerous contradictions implicit in the modern idea
>of property, what evidence have you that these rights constitute
>the fundamental control over the real world around us which we need
>in order to live?

i believe i already explained this somewhere sometime. the right
to life means more than the right not to starve to death.

>To take a real life case: how can you relate the
>vast fortune MicroSoft has brought Bill Gates (which I don't begrudge
>him, by the way) to his right to life?

simple -- by his actions and the product of his mind (and others',
of course), he *created* the wealth he has. a better question would be
who else has a right to that wealth, and why?

>And, in a related question:
>how do you justify the expiry of his copyrights and patents as anything
>but (in your terms) an attack on the "right to life" of his heirs,
>successors, and assigns?

i know little about patent and copyright law.

>>no. they have the right to life and the freedom to promote themselves
>>to the best of their ability, without being prevented by violent
>>intervention, like anyone else. that does not mean that they
>>have the right to have others provide for them, however. because that
>>would be inconsistent with the rights to property, freedom, and life
>>of those others, and inconsistent with an individualistic system.
>
>You have obviously never worked with profoundly retarded children.
>They have no ability to "promote themselves"; they live at the level
>of six month old babies. If we do not provide for them, to the
>extent of feeding them with a spoon, they will die. They have nothing
>(in the conventional sense) to give; the only value they have is in
>what they can receive. They know then we love them. They know (without
>understanding) when we care for them.

i said once in a previous post that children are a special case.
since you again deleted your quote to which i responded, i don't
remember the context of my words. but i believe we were talking about
capable adults here. bringing in retarded children is irrelevant.
can you refute my point wrt non-retarded adults? that's what's
important. we can deal with the kids afterwards.

>But their helplessness and need does not render them less individuals.

doesn't render them *more* individuals either, does it?

>And there we see the flaw in your definition of "individualism". I
>consider the obligations I have to others a fundamental part of my
>individuality.

why do you have these obligations? who imposed them? how are they
justified?

>Before you probe the difficult part of the whole issue and ask why
>these obligations should be enforced by the state

never mind that, where do they come from at all? who has the 
right to impose them? why do you believe they exist?
*that* is the heart of the matter.

>let me answer: in
>a perfect world, nobody would need to enforce any obligation. But
>just as the state will intervene if you copy one of my programs until
>fifty years after my death, it has the right to intervene in support
>of the claims those weak individuals have against strong individuals.

bogus argument on three counts.

first, you are justifying your position by likening it to
something about which i have never commented, as if i had. for all you
know, i don't support copyright law.

second, you just erased the whole matter of the differences between rights with
a hand-wave simply because you don't like the idea of there being
differences. you haven't proven that there is no difference, so you
can't just equate the two rights so simply.

third, you have never stated on what basis the weak individuals have any
claim against the strong individuals.

>>>Look, the laws that define and uphold the notion of property
>>>espoused by the state exist as an empirical fact. The state does
>>>quite explicitly define property and the rights attached to it.
>>
>>but it has no more right to do so than a stranger off the street
>>has the right to tell you whom to marry. just because it seized that
>>authority does not make this correct.
>
>Tell me who else would define property?

the fallacy is yours.
if you are claiming that no-one has the right to any property, which
you seem to be doing, the best you can do is argue that no-one has
the right to define it, not that the government should because no-one
else would be better.

>It only exists because the
>laws which govern our interaction with the physical world say it does.

so what? it exists.
right now, everything on this planet, just about, is owned by
someone. the only laws of property that matter describe how that
ownership should be maintained or transferred in the future.

>I have control over the things I publish until 50 years after my death,
>because the laws of Canada say so.

you accuse *me* of circular argument?
we are discussing what should be, a theoretical philosophical discussion.
if you want to have the right to control things 50 years after you die,
you have to justify them, just as we have been trying to justify everything
else. you can't rely on "the laws of Canada".
they are are totally irrelevant to this discussion!

>That constitutes the definition of
>property we know.

if you actually believe that the government of Canada's definition
of property is the one that i use, it is no wonder we are talking
right past each other so much.

>The basic definition you have given excludes
>inheritance, natural phenomena (how do you "make" a sunny meadow or
>a plant), and most of the other basis for the property we lay claim to.

and your definition of property excludes *everything*.
so where exactly are you trying to go with this?

and if you want to talk about "natural phenomena", how do incompetent
members of animal species survive? i wouldn't even start down that
road if i were you.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada