Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:43:59 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
 <93010.213550SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1993Jan12.110015.7596@ee.ubc.ca>

In article <1993Jan12.110015.7596@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
Morrison) says:

>In any event, we return to the idea that you have a right not to be
>murdered.
>
>AS if this discredits the idea itself. Intellectual property isn't an
>invalid idea, any more than the right to life is, so if you are trying
>to make some kind of Marxist 'proof' that property is an artificial,
>therefore invalid idea, you can give up right now, or we can put
>a gun to your head, and ask you to deduce why you have a RIGHT to
>live.

Your use of violent imagery of this kind suggests you strongly resent
my ideas, but have no cogent argument to refute them.

>I think I've already explained how our notion of rights evolved.

Define "our". If you mean "our" as in the group who believes as
you do, the notion didn't evolve; a handful of thinkers created it.
If you mean "our" as in Western society, our notion of rights
evolved largely from religious roots, which also form the source
for our modern notions of public welfare. See the Bible for the
commandment to "do no murder" and to not reap the corners of your
fields, so that the poor could glean. See further the Middle Ages,
with Church charities and tithes (not a voluntary affair).

>Basically, if the algorithm you use to play through life is: maximize what
>is immediately advantageous,  you will fail, because other algorithms will
>use schemes with memory, and when they come accross you again, they will
>act to punish you.

When I consider my existence as a moral agent, I do not think of myself
as an "algorithm". And I do not refrain from murder because if its
inefficiency; nor, by the way, do people usually commit murder for the
reasons you suggest. Your description of human life as a formal system
constitutes such gross reductionism that I can only say: that does
not represent the world I live in.

>>Right. I'll suggest another thought: perhaps more than one workable
>>system for human to relate to the physical world exists.
>
>how do you maximize your self interest? That's what drives us, and that's
>why we arrive at rights, morals, etc.

Skip the "we", please. Self interest, pure and simple, does not drive
me. It certainly does not form the basis of my view of rights or morals,
(I have no idea what you mean by "etc." in that sentence). If I believed
I was the kind of creature you describe, I don't think I'd see any point
in "winning". Nor do I see what prize you propose. Your argument reminds
me of Bruce Cockburn's line: "And all the highest bidder gets, is a
voucher for a tomb".

>>Sorry, on the matter of ease, no sale. A Roman slave owner would not
>>have found it difficult to "deal with the issue" of slavery. Romans
>>owned their slaves, and as far as I can determine, many if not most
>>of them had no problem with it. We view their conduct as unnatural.
>>Perhaps a society of the future would find our forms of property
>>unnatural. But they didn't think of themselves as unnatural, any more
>>than we think of ourselves as unnatural.
>>
>And it wasn't stable, or sustainable was it? Apply logic, and
>deduce what is rational behavior, when every individual's prime motivation
>is self interest. With a long term view, slavery isn't sustainable,
>out of that we invent rights, etc.

Incorrect on all counts. The Hellenistic slave system (of which
Rome formed a part) lasted at least ten centuries. If you take the
institution of slavery as a whole, assuming complete abolition in
AD 1950, you get a duration of 25 centuries (minimum). That works
out to about 100 times as long as we have had capitalism in its modern
form. If you argue from "sustainability", you lose big. In any event,
it lasted well past the  life of any individual, so that slavery did
serve the long term interest of the individual slave owner.

Of course, I don't consider slavery morally acceptable. I merely
point out that it represents an example that behooves us to be
humble when we say we have this or that form of property, and its
existence justifies it. Slaveowners could have said the same, and
they had precisely the same evidence we do.

>Actually, money works because it is valuable. Proof: I can take a piece
>of metal or paper, and exchange it for some other item or service.
>If the money were not valuable, I wouldn't be able to exchange it for
>something of value. If money didn't take the form it does now, some other
>unit of account or barter would exist. You are just tilting at windmills...
>this is  a non-issue, but surprisingly a lot of people are paranoid about
>it.

A double tautology. Money has value because I can exchange it for valuable
things. Who can argue with that? And if we didn't have money, some other
system would exist. Well, if we didn't have money, we would have a system
without it. Such a system would differ from money; it might not be state
mediated (a profound difference), it might not involve the notions of
ownership of abstract value money does, and so on.

If you don't consider it an issue, why reply to it?

>*pooof* I have just dissolved all governments. Guess what dude, money
>still exists.

I suggest you conduct the experiment before you report the results.

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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada