Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!roger
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: MY :-) stereo
Message-ID: <13029@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 90 23:04:41 GMT
References: <2310@odin.SGI.COM> <12569@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2356@odin.SGI.COM> <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu> <2818@odin.SGI.COM> <8ZggXmy00W0TM96LF=@andrew.cmu.edu> <2847@odin.SGI.COM> <21673@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <2908@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 66

In article <2908@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <21673@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham) writes:
>Not intended as sarcasm.

>In many discussions of property rights, where the concept of ownership is
>asserted as inherent, the lifeboat cases ALWAYS pop up.

>I mean, why is it that people so quickly jump to, "well, what about the case
>where you have two guys in a lifeboat and only one ...".

Why?  Because we ARE to some extent in a lifeboat!  People are, this
very moment, dying for want of essentials that others have and can live
without!!!

And a propertarian system does not address this problem!

>So we both jumped out of the plane at the same time. And he forgot his chute.

Is this another Henry Kissinger joke?  8-)

>Yes, if he "steals" mine, he lives and I dies. He committed a wrong act.
>I died a wrongful act. So?

So nothing.  What if you OWNED two chutes?  Does he have a RIGHT to one?

You don't need the lifeboat at all to address the life-right vs.
property-right issue.

>Or maybe this starving guy stumbles across my winter cabin and breaks in
>for shelter and food. He commits a crime. So? Pay me for the food,
>repair the cabin and I'm O.K. Restitution IS a concept you know.

But absolute ownership of your property is NO LONGER a concept, because
you just said it was OK for the guy to help himself without your
consent!   True, you have attached conditions to his actions, and just
ones, too, I might add; but YOU HAVE LOST ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF YOUR
PROPERTY.  you have granted him the RIGHT to control some of your
property at his discretion.

And that, my friend, is what taxation is all about in a fair society.
It is no more and no less theft than what you described: it is the
appropriation of funds for URGENT things, WITH RESTITUTION.  

What's the restitution?  you get a say in how the money will be spent.
Often, the benefits to you are not negligible, even though you didn't
ask for them -- but then, you haven't said that the starving man has to
meet any conditions other than fairness when repaying you.

Taxation has some things in common with theft.  That's for sure.  It can
also be done unjustly, and unnecessarily, and that's to be avoided as
much as possible.  

But taxation is also UNLIKE theft!

Thieves don't tend to steal an equal amount from EVERYBODY, including
themselves.  (I know, taxation is not equal; but it's not done at
random, either, the way theft is.)

Thieves don't offer joint control of the stolen goods to all the
victims.  

And so on.  

Having conceded that the person in need may violate property rights, you
really ought to rethink many of the things you've said, INCLUDING your
justification of not taking part in an imperfect form of government.