From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 04:02:23 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Followup-To: can.politics,talk.politics.theory

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.
>
>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.  In that case,
your police force is going to prevent my advancing my survival by taking
my booty away from me and then locking me in a building with people who'd 
kill someone soon as look sideways at them.  (Note how the wheel of life 
has turned, and I am no longer a lord, but a lowly peon.  Ah, Fate....)

>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.

>>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.
>
>>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.
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.

>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.  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.

>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.  

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 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.  I do not think _my_ morality is special in any way to anyone
but _me_.  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.  At the same time, I leave my options
open by retaining my option to rebel against my society.

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.

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

>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".

>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 :-).
>
>--
>charles

...mark young
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics