From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Individualism & the Common Weal
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:43:48 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.

  This, of course, depends on where a just government derives its
power. Are governments instituted by men to protect their rights
or do governments have a life of there own and, in order to 
stay around, toss a few crumbs to the masses.
  I believe the former. Governments are instituted among people
to secure individual liberties from invaders, foreign and domestic.
Rights and property are not doled out by government, they are
independent of its (non)existence.
  As far as force and property goes, where is the force involved in
the *act* of owning property? The only time force becomes an issue
is when one party tries to *take* a piece of property from another
person. This is one very good justification for having a government
by way of arbitrating and codifying the method one gains property,
but it doesn't alter the fact that property is independant of 
government.
  Property rights arise naturally, and are completely independant
of whether a government of any kind is in effect at the time. 
Property is just a realization of the fact that nature does not 
deliver every desirable thing to you at any whim. As such some 
things are going to be scarce and an allocation scheme must be 
decided upon. 
 
> 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.

  Ceasars come much later in the scheme of property rights. 
 
> >I don't mean to sound heartless here, but systematically looting from
> >the haves to the havenots does nothing more than give disincentive to
> >the haves to produce more. The net effect of this is to reduce
> >everybody to the same level of poverty.
> 
> Dear old Karl Marx would say that you only think this because your
> ownership of property makes you do so.  But I figure you are capable
> of figuring out that this is nonsense.  To start with, taxes are not
> looting.  

  Why? Because you say so? 

> Moreover, it is not true that more taxes must lead to less
> prosperity. In Germany, taxes are higher than in the US, and things
> in many ways are in better shape.
 
  And in many ways is far worse. You conviniently forget the fact
that Germany has no concept of civil liberties the same way that
the US does. Whereas the US is individualistic, Germany is regimented --
although we are unfortunately following their lead on that account 
too :(
  I don't think you can even say that though. What evidence do
we have that high taxes produce a better standard of living? 
We clearly have instances where taxes targeted at differing 
things produce different results -- no real suprise there. 
We are still left with relatively high taxes in both systems
producing relatively small differences in productivity. 
  The closest that we have in history wrt to productivity and
low taxes is the US, and perhaps on a smaller scale Singapore and
Hong Kong. These, I will submit, produced spectacular gains
in productivity -- far above the relatively high taxed states.
 
> So if you don't really think all taxes are bad and all government is
> bad (which is what your rhetoric appears to be saying) maybe you could
> try communicating with us in actual thoughts rather than idiotic
> slogans, and tell us what you do think.

  Jahowl! I didn't say that all government is bad. I'm not an
anarchist (for the third time). I think it has its proper place
and that is the protection of individual rights. Taxes may have
a place for this purpose (and may not), but when a government
deviates from its rightful purpose taxes are nothing more than
theft -- regardless of how well intentioned the thievery is.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: soc.motss