Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:51:16 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)
 <1993Jan11.070424.2916@athena.mit.edu> <93011.130109SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan12.033525.26729@athena.mit.edu>

In article <1993Jan12.033525.26729@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles
M Kozierok) says:

>i think the only difference we have is how the relationship between
>people and material items is defined. i still don't see the essential
>point you are trying to make. i apologize (no sarcasm intended here).

If you see that the only difference we have involves the definition
of the relationship between people and material items, then you do get
my essential point. I think you may have assumed I meant to make a
more complex point than I did.

>true; though you will admit that that comment in no way reduces
>the validity of my point above. this is a problem with your definition of
>property, is it not? do you own your body or not?

Since I did not make, and can not make, my body, I don't own it.
Since nobody else made it, they can't own it, either. That does not
make me a slave; indeed, it makes me a slave to nobody, not even
myself. The distinction matters here: a person who owns themselves
remains a commodity. I believe humans fall out of the category of
property entirely. This distinction matters considerably when we
come to deal with such things as labour relations.

>>Look at it this way. A farmer sows and reaps, and brings in a crop.
>>That crop exists partly because of the farmer's effort, and you I
>>do not question the moral right of the farmer to profit from the
>>work involved. But the crop also exists because of a multitude of
>>factors which the farmer did not create: farmers do not, after all,
>>create crops from nothing. And many of the raw materials (such as
>>the sun and the air) they use "belong" to nobody.
>
>i see your point, but i don't think it makes any difference. i look at
>it this way: ignore all the factors that are common to all humans,
>and all natural factors, because only humans can own property. now,
>examine the situation and say "of all the humans involved, who
>is responsible for the production of the item? that person should
>own it". all persons who are involved should either own it or
>be compensated in some way.

Right. And in a limitless world, the discussion would end there.
But the crops the farmer grows stem not just from his work, but
also from the land, which the farmer owns or rents. And that use
of property provides the farmer with access to resources that
nobody created, and which others can not use.

>in your example above, the crop exists because of a multitude of
>factors which the farmer did not create; true enough. but the essential
>question is: without whom would the crops not have been created? the answer
>is the farmer. the crops would have been created fine if *i* ceased to
>exist; and i have the same access to all the resources the farmer does.

Really? Do you have a farm? More to the point, our society does
not provide everyone with land for growing crops; nor should it.

Look at it this way (to turn your argument around: you claim that
allocating resources you did not create constitutes theft. All right,
I can recognise the farmer's right to the crops because I know who
did the work that went into them. I can't assign the rights to the
sun and the air to the farmer, because I didn't make them; neither
can anyone else. So I have to accept that the farmer has used resources
to make the crop that no human agent created. How should we treat
these resources?

>>God imposed them. That's my short answer. If you don't believe in
>>God, well, God still believes in you.
>
>well, i may or may not. or i may believe in a different one. i don't
>want to broach the subject personally.

Fair enough. You asked me who I believe imposed the obligation on me
personally, and I answered. However, I can defend the legitimacy of
the claims of the poor on the rich without referring to divine
commandment.

Going back to natural resources (the portion that do NOT come to us
through human effort): who owns them? And how do we justify this
ownership? Well, if you believe as I do that we all have an equal
right to live, and that we need access to natural resources in order
to live, we all have an equal right to those natural resources
nobody can claim on the basis of creation.

Also, as equal participants in the human endeavour, we have an
equal right to the heritage of knowledge (such as the lever)
which nobody living has created.

I therefore believe that to the extent the property we create
incorporates such shared resources, we have an obligation to share
the results. Taxation for social welfare constitutes one
implementation of such sharing, although it has a major flaw: it
does not make the relationship between the use of shared resources
and the obligation to share the results clear. Taxes have a ring of
"pay because we say so" that everyone (rightly or wrongly) resents.

>i have had recommended to me the book "The Enterprise of Law" by Bruce
>Benson which describes a paradigm of anarcho-capitalism which may
>show otherwise. i haven't read it yet myself. but i just found myself
>on the other end of a (well-argued) discussion where some others
>were suggesting that even less government than objectivists would
>like may be possible. check it out.

As an anarchist, I believe that "there's no government like no
government". But if you want a paradigm for the necessary sharing
based on fundamental rights that does not rest on a "we need it
so we can take it" argument, check this proposal out:

If we want a money/trade economy (not an essential, but possibly
useful), we vest in a sort of "commons" all abandoned intellectual
property; that is, all of the patents, copyrights, etc. whose
holders died without heirs. The license fees from this material
goes to fund education and other "social" expenses, including the
social investment needed to encourage people to succeed and
produce more intellectual and material goods. We limit government
to the basic functions of protecting lives, etc. Call itthe
Intellectual Heritage Trust arrangement for social investment.

Anyway, that's one possible alternative to standard taxation.
Personally, I prefer classical anarchism, which drastically
modifies the property paradigm by eliminating the overall idea
of "property" in favour of particular relationships (the hat I
wear, the house I live in, and so on). For a good imaginative
picture of such a society, see Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossessed".

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