From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:39:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.200010.22792@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.070424.2916@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <93010.220001SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>>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?
>
>It is possible to argue that those institutions that have supported
>him in some way in being able to prepare his mind to create things
>like MS-DOS might have some claim; however, since there was no
>contract (explicit or otherwise) defining such a claim, the point is
>moot.

i would agree with this.

>The question really is of who might morally have a claim on the
>benefits; the only obvious answer IS Bill Gates.
>
>Without knowing the SPECIFIC contributions of other parties, and any
>corresponding remuneration, it isn't possible to get any clearer.
>
>The "Bill Gates" example may not be the best example; I'll propose
>another one that may be sufficiently abstract to work better.
>
>Suppose there is a factory that produces television sets.  It is a
>highly automated factory; no human beings are actually involved in the
>PRODUCTION of television sets there.
>
>The only staff at this factory are involved with:
>a) Repair and maintainance of the automated equipment
>b) Opening and closing the door for trucks that drive in to the
>loading area to either drop off materials, or to pick up crates full
>of TV sets.
>c) Security - making sure nobody rips off any TV sets
>d) Accounting
>
>Who should receive benefit for the production of the television sets?
>
>Any of the possibilities outside of the "owners of the factory" will
>result in some very strange economic outcomes.

similar to my assessment of the farmer case in my post previous to this 
one. tell me if you agree.

>>>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.
>
>If the creation of these intellectual rights is a "good thing," then
>isn't the destruction of these rights an attack on "heirs et al.?"

i would think so.

>>>>>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.
>
>"Property rights" circumscribe who will has authority over property,
>and who doesn't.  If there is no generally accepted definition, then
>people will just go by the classic "Possession is nine points of the
>law."
>
>Someone will claim authority.  The only question that remains is who
>that someone will be.

i think that is in essence the same as my point.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada