It doesn’t explain why babies and small children tend to try and take things as their own. The aged old “MINE” argument. Homesteading objects and taking property is an attribute innate to man, has nothing to do with what laws exist or don’t exist. Even men who live on the fringe of civilization will build their cottage homes in such a way as to protect their assets, tools, family members, ect…
This comes back to the property as being an axiom argument. Though it could be argued as an assertion it would benefit you to understand what that means.
This response has to do with the formation of market prices. I wrote about it here. I recommend reading it when you get time. I would also recommend picking up Human Action and giving it a read at your leisure.
I will have to take a look at the references you've provided when I get a chance.
Regarding the first comment, "effective property rights" is not the same as the concept of property rights. Whatever one believes property rights should mean, in the end what they actually are (what one actually experiences) depends on the group dynamic. In North Korea, people still have a form of property rights, although they are quite different (much more limited) than the rights to property that we enjoy in the US (I don't know where you are actually, but I'm in the US).
Also, strictly speaking even the impulse of self-interest can be thought of as existing in consequence of a law (i.e. a statistical regularity) as I tried to point out earlier. The law from which this impulse springs is the "law of the jungle", a direct consequence of the scarcity of resources and drive for individual survival. We can understand that these laws have woven themselves into the behavior of mankind (and animals) via natural selection and individual experience with scarcity early on in the developmental process.
Yes. Your claim was that taxation was unjustified, and that if it was justified it wouldn’t be “taxation”. This is purely circular.
[/quote]
The fact that it’s coercive is insignificant unless coercion is unjust.
It is extremely unlikely a market could provide monocentric justice, and a state can wage war much easier, as it can forcefully altar/redirect an economy’s capital structure towards such a purpose, while a market is reliant on demand existing for it. I don’t see how these facts have anything to do with the provision of all other goods.
I suppose if you wanted to argue that the production of bananas was a desirable and necessary social end, absent of demand for them, then you could say that the state ought to redirect capital for the provision of such things. It’s highly unlikely anyone would agree with this sentiment, nor is it likely that you actually accept it.
Stealing is, by definition, an unjust action; it is a moral word. If right and wrong are non-objective categories then stealing is a non-objective description for an action.
That was an argument for ethical skepticism, not nihilism. But if you have any evidence of your ethics actually existing and being a part of the nature of an action, feel free to provide it.
So it acts like a monopolist would, and suffers all the attendant problems. How is any of the above desirable and how does this make it unlike the provision of any other good?
I don’t understand how this equates to property rights per se, this seems more like an egoist argument, that is, taking whatever you want, whenever you want, until you are resisted.
Again negative. The only circular reasoning here are the ones who beg the question that taxation is legitimate. You have to prove that my friend.
If I am paying rent to the government it must be implied that they own the land. They can say that I own the land but it’s entirely semantics as I am paying my rent to them. There is no circular reasoning, the actions that must take place prove this. Take care not to get caught up in semantics.
And as such we are waiting for you to prove that it is justified. Please continue.
Ahh but again you assume that we need and want monocentric justice. Such a concept is entirely anti-market.
What I am saying is that the label of “Necessary Social Ends” are given arbitrarily. Some say healthcare is a necessary social end, some say food, others say security, and still others national defense. If it was a necessary social end wouldn’t we all agree to it by default? Unfortunately the visible actions of man state otherwise.
Indeed and we continue to go in circles. So feel free to explain to us how taxation is not stealing. We await.
The point is the phenomena of property is not necessarily a social phenomena but an attribute innate to human behavior. Probably as a consequence to scarcity. The attribute of man to claim objects and keep them as his.
As I said, even a man who lives alone on an island will care for his things. His house, his tools, his storage, ect… Even in the absence of other people the concept of property remains.
No more, and no less then the right to drink milk every morning for breakfast. Both rights are best satisfied on the market. If man believes these are rights his actions will reflect and the market will meet that demand.
One who advocstes socialist security/protection must decide whether or not they believe the functionality or ability of markets. On the one hand if the market does work than coercively distributed security is not necessary, the market will provide. On the other hand if the market is broken then all aspects of it should be annexed to the state, not just protection and security. To isolate it to security is arbitrary, if you fundamentally believe the market fails then you must be against capitalism all together. Being in the middle just makes you look confused, and being unable to comprehend the reason why capitalism succeeds. You cannot advocate for free-markets while being in support of coercively distributed protection without sounding self defeating, such a notion is hypocritical and inconsistent in and of itself.
The distinction that security is somehow not a market good is entirely arbitrary. As with all coercively distributed monopolies the state’s ‘security’ has lagged behind and in it’s absence the market has filled the gap. This is specifically prevalent in technological forms of security where the state has not had the ability to ‘protect and serve’. Primarily because it was incapable of keeping with the times. In its place we have had very succesfull private technology firms to fill the gap, firewall producers, anti-virus producers, and all other forms of network protection, ect…
My contention is that all of these are examples are societal constructs. The only reasons you, I, or anybody does or has these things is the fact they’ve managed, through acts of will, to prevent any other individual from taking them from him. Without the constructs of ideas of right, in the natural state of the world, if you posses something, and I covet it, only your defense of the object prevents me from taking it. If you want to take air into your lungs, and I want to suffocate you, only your ability to defend your breathing prevents me. If you want to act independently, and I want to enslave you, only you defense of your liberty will prevent me.
If the concept of right is considered intrinsic, rather than granted, we get into the mess of coercive means to enact the desire of the righteous against the unrighteous.
If you want to violate my rights, only my defense of my liberty will prevent you. While I agree that the agreement not to violate one another’s rights is a social construct, the existence of those rights is not.
I see your contention. I am just sitting on the sidelines listening and learning. The conversation has been pretty interesting for me thus far. So if you see me not respond thats why. Probably because I don’t know how.
This conversation is passing into the realm of things I have not studied much but the point I was trying to make earlier is there are traits innate to man’s nature which are not constructs of society, and don’t have necessarily anything to do with rights. For example, Human Action is an attribute of man that regardless of whether he’s in society or not would continue to occur. Maintaining and protecting property is another likely attribute of man. These attributes are not rights, they are traits innate to Man’s behavior.
Now, How those attributes are respected, managed, and maintained in a societal construct is where rights come into play I guess. The point I am making is that property is not necessarily a right only visible in society. In other words, if Robinson Crusoe lives alone on an island, he does not have to worry about his right to act being infringed apon. His only fear for his right to property is his material and tools decaying because he did not properly care for them, like take them out of the rain and safe hold them in shelter. In other words, Crusoe still needs to maintain his belongings and whater property he’s gathered on the island. He still needs to act as well, but he does not have to worry about his rights. That only comes into play when Crusoe leaves the island and moves to the city.
Again let me remind you I am on new territory so critique me, educate, as you will. Thanks!
This example, I think, helps to illustrate the right of property as superfluous. Since Crusoe is alone, he can claim the whole island as his. Whether or not he utilizes every last resource, or whether he was the first to make this claim, as long as he can effectively prevent others from taking it away from him, it will de facto be his island.
Now say a tribe of Caribs show up in a canoe and kill poor Robin. Some natural rights proponents might say the natives were wrong for doing so. But, as it stands the island is now theirs. So Robin may have had all the right in the world, it hasn’t done him any good. Might makes right, not imaginary rules with no enforcement.
Yes that is where things change. From an economics stance though, if we acknowledge the Law of Comparative Advantage it would be in both the savages and in Crusoe’s best interest to join each other in mutual trade and cooperation. The savages do themselves a disservice by removing Crusoe. I know this is a utilitarian argument but I think a valid one non the less.
You have to prove that my friend.