orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/13/85)
> > By what right can a government force a person from her home if taxes are > not paid? Does the government own the land upon which she lives? Does > the government own her house? Does the government have a right to say > whether or not this person can stay in a house that she owns, paid for with > her salary, that she earned from selling her labor, eitc? Or is something > more fundamental, more important at work here? It seems to me that if > the state does not own the property in question, then it has no right > to force a person to leave it, regardless of whether or not taxes are > paid. > Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley The government does not *own* the property in question - rather it provides the definitions and defense of what property is in the first place. Without government to defend the right of private property there would be no property but what the strong seized from those unable to defend themselves. Thus you are right to say that there *is* something more fundamental involved here. Without a government to provide conditions for exchange there could be no free market: for who would regulate commerce to insure that somebody didn't just steal something? Even the classical economic philosophers like Adam Smith and others realized that some form of government was necessary in order to allow free markets to exist. Otherwise we would wind up with piracy. It astounds me that some Libertarians do not even seem to realize the roots of arguments for laissez-faire in classical economic philosophy. tim sevener whuxl!orb