From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:52:34 GMT

In article <93008.020107SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.042007.20526@csi.uottawa.ca>, cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
>(Christopher Browne) says:
>>
>>If there's no individual "right", then it's going to be rather
>>difficult to determinine a way of having a state's "right," isn't it?
>
>No state has any rights whatsoever. A state represents an intellectual
>tool, a paradigm, and those (us) who use it may alter, reduce, change,
>or annihilate it at any time, and for any reason (or none).
>
>The debate over property rights boils down to two simple questions: can
>we define a set of rights by individuals over the physical world? And
>if so, do the current state arrangements (ie. real estate law, joint
>stock corporations, bank deposit insurance, et al) approximate this
>ideal?


It seems that a few too many 'on the left' regard property as just an
invented, arbitrarily created right. Yet I don't hear them arguing
that 'the right not to be murdered' is merely an arbitrarily created
right.

If we can ignore philosophy for a moment, and look at de-facto 'rights':
ie what I have, and what I can do for myself. The 'right' to be
free from being murdered, and the right to property naturally flows
from what I can do  for myself. try to kill me, and I will defend
myself. Try to steal my food, or clothes or animals, and I will defend
myself. That is why we invent societies and rights: because we can be
better off if we all agree to respect each other, our 'rights' and
our property. If we break this by stealing or killing, society
or ones kin will act in retribution.

We can argue about what happens if one can not defend oneself or
one's  property adequately. WE have to try and be rational, but
this may not lead to morally comforting positions. If I can
get away with stealling and plundering, then it is rational
to do that. If I can manage to get others to feed me and clothe me and
take care of me, then it is rationale to do that. Morality
is not even a concern yet. 

But of course, we have to evaluate the relative risks, and how long
we can continue to plunder others to support our existence, or
how long can we live off the avails of others.
Morality develops when we consider the actions, reactions, and
retaliations of others. Perhaps one can steal and kill for a living, but
then perhaps others will form alliances to retaliate.

Our sense of rights, and of morality develops when we consider
in *ideal terms*, the consequences of all these social interactions.
These rights and morals assume 'if we were to behave raionally, over
the *long term*....then this is the appropriate behaviour'. Of course,
there is always the temptation to break ranks, to act 'rationally'
over the short term (to steal, because one knows the risk at
the moment is low, or the expected gains are very high), but 
experience tends to prove that one can't play this for long,
before things catch up with you. If an individual acts in
an irrational manor, or in a manor that is only rational for
a short term outlook, then society acts to curtain this.
If the society itself is based on irrational actions, then
that society will collapse on itself.


So I think that this argument that 'property is merely an invention
of state....etc' is a very flimsy one. Most of our notions of
morality are based on what we would not like others to do to us.
We don;t want to be murdered, so society agrees on mutual respect
of each other's lives; we dont wan't to be robbed, so we form
the idea of property and possesion. To argue against this would
be irrational; this isn't to say that life is based on rational
actions at all times; but it is clear that overall, we try to
act this way, and that we succeed when we do.


>
>I do not argue in favour of "rights" for the state (an absurdity); nor
>do I argue that any rights stem from force. Might does not make right
>(and right rarely makes might, alas).

Rights ultimately do not stem from force, because continued maintenance
of force is impossible. It can only be applied for so long, before
one makes enough enemies, and in turn they destroy you. Any short
term gains from force, cheating etc. is eventually lost. THerefore,
not worth doing.

>
>Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
>Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.
>
>standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics