pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/18/90)
In article <21673@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >Now let's say you show up, lost in the desert. You're pretty hungry, so >you try to trade your watch for some food, knowing, of course, that >barter is the universal language... 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 ...". So we both jumped out of the plane at the same time. And he forgot his chute. Yes, if he "steals" mine, he lives and I dies. He committed a wrong act. I died a wrongful act. So? 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. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (01/18/90)
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.
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/18/90)
In article <2908@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >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 ...". Because a lot of things seem to make perfect sense when only common everyday occurances are considered. Newtonian physics works great when you're talking about objects larger than grains of sand and smaller than mountians (eg 99.99% of everyday life). So it becomes real easy to start accepting trends that are based on common events as absolutes. When you only consider examples that concern common events ("...say I grow some corn on my land...") of course the common rules will fit like a glove. It's only when you try to plot the course of photons through a gravitational field, or describe what happens to land that "nobody owns", or imagine societies with differing concepts of property interacting that you wonder if Newtonian physics is'nt just a useful set of approximations, and maybe the system of ownership that I've been taught from birth is just a social convention that works for me mainly because everyone around me is following the same rules. I hope this helps explain why I (and others) approach concepts in this way. None of this, however, alters the fact that for some reason you've chosen not to answer the question that was posed. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <13029@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >>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. Look, I use and choose my words carefully. Try reading and comprehending them. Theft is theft. I own my property. I don't know of any cases where I or anybody else has absolute CONTROL of property. Earthquakes, coercion, all kinds of things happen. CONTROL != OWNESHIP I steal your car. I control it. Do I own it? No. Can you prevent me from stealing your car if I really wanted to? No. Got it? I did NOT say it was O.K. for the guy to steal my property. Got that asshole!!!??? I aid in that secnario above, I would be O.K. if restitution was made. If the guy made a habit of it, I would NOT feel O.K. about it. You setal my car for a real emergency trip to hospital, it's theft, but I would understand. Make restitution. Take my car often or for non-emergencies, you got big time trouble. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/19/90)
In article <2949@odin.SGI.COM>, pkr@maddog (Phil Ronzone) writes: >You setal my car for a real emergency trip to hospital, it's theft, >but I would understand. Make restitution. Take my car often or for >non-emergencies, you got big time trouble. What kind of trouble? Would you call the police? If you did, then it seems to me you are buying into the social contract to that extent at least. Can you now claim taxation is theft, etc.? But if you would not call the police, what would you do? You aren't really in a position to cause "big time trouble". It seems to me your position (my property is whatever I say it is) is tenable if you have superhuman powers and don't *need* a social contract. But you don't have superhuman powers. Nor can you make cars and stereos by yourself. You acquire them by playing a part in a very complex society which *can* make cars and stereos. Your stereo is not like Crusoe's parasol, and your claim to it as an autonomous individual without reference to society seems preposterous to me. It is "yours", but by yourself you can neither acquire it nor keep it. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/20/90)
In article <21701@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >It's only when you try to plot the course of photons through a >gravitational field, or describe what happens to land that "nobody >owns", or imagine societies with differing concepts of property >interacting that you wonder if Newtonian physics is'nt just a useful >set of approximations, and maybe the system of ownership that I've been >taught from birth is just a social convention that works for me mainly >because everyone around me is following the same rules. > >I hope this helps explain why I (and others) approach concepts in this >way. None of this, however, alters the fact that for some reason you've >chosen not to answer the question that was posed. Men are not photons. All photons are subject to the same physical laws and will react the same. The reactions of men are volitional. It is extremely interesting how a photon behaves at different velocities. It is important to physics. In a volitional science, it is important to derive the basis for a system of government (non-coercive) that allows the vast majority of men to pursue happiness. I believe it is impossible to have any perfect system where men are concerned. Being marooned in a lifeboat with another person and having only enough food for one DOES raise difficult ethical questions (although not of morality or ownership). However, since lifeboat cases are so exceptionally rare, I feel that a system that provides for a non-coercive government but doesn't handle lifeboat cases is very very acceptable. I.e., we've solved crime, oppression, lack of freedom, and provided for maximal pursuit of happiness. But alas, we didn't fully solve the lifeboat case .... (Although there is no moral problem in the lifeboat case). ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/20/90)
In article <1990Jan19.100315.28073@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > What kind of trouble? Would you call the police? If you did, >then it seems to me you are buying into the social contract to >that extent at least. Can you now claim taxation is >theft, etc.? If you steal my car, I will go and recover it. If you initiate force to prevent me from recovering my car, I will defend myself with a greater amount of force. > Nor can you make cars and stereos by yourself. You acquire them >by playing a part in a very complex society which *can* make cars >and stereos. Your stereo is not like Crusoe's parasol, and your >claim to it as an autonomous individual without reference to >society seems preposterous to me. It is "yours", but by yourself >you can neither acquire it nor keep it. Eh? I'm not an actor. I don't "play parts". I DO exchange my goods and services for other goods and services. Complexity of the society has nothing to do with. If I'm a primitive who found a pretty gold nugget in a stream and I trade it to another primitive I meet for some food, HOW is that any different in principal from going to the market and trading pretty pieces of green paper for food? >"A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt By their words shall ye know them .... ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
wombat@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Christopher M. Conway) (01/20/90)
In article <13029@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >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! Nor does any form of government other than socialism or communism. And we can all SEE how bankrupt those systems are. There is enough food extant in the world to feed everyone; the problem is distribution. If governments got out of the way, then maybe, just maybe, people (like you) who are concerned over these inequities would do something about it! >But taxation is also UNLIKE theft! Agreed. Taxation is not theft. Taxation is extortion. If I don't pay my taxes, Uncle Sam comes and impounds my bank account, my car, my house, and my cats. He then throws me into prison. Frankly, I prefer Guido's style-- he just breaks my legs. >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.) If it's not completely equal, then it is unfair. And how many politicians tax themselves "fairly" to start with? Ever see what Ronnie paid in taxes each year, for example? >Thieves don't offer joint control of the stolen goods to all the >victims. Nor does Uncle Sam. I don't want my money wasted on the grotesquely excessive defense budget; nor do I want any of the social programs funded. I will never receive a penny from these (no, not that I think I won't ever be allowed to-- it's that I won't, even if eligible-- I think they're WRONG. I'm also part American Indian. However, I do not claim this in order to get preferential treatment under quotas. I prefer to justify myself by my own talents. Besides, the fraction of AmerInd IS rather small... B^)). I don't want to give money to social (in)security-- it's a pyramid scheme. I'd rather invest that money for my retirement myself. Do I really have any chance of controlling the money extorted from me for these ends? Is a congressman going to listen to me, a lone voice, or the thousands of welfare recipients and elderly who don't pay taxes but DO vote? Several tens or hundreds of thousands to one? They won't even give the candidates for office that I do support the same chance that multiparty candidates in the Soviet block currently get!
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/20/90)
In article <3008@odin.SGI.COM>, pkr@maddog (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <1990Jan19.100315.28073@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >> What kind of trouble? Would you call the police? If you did, >>then it seems to me you are buying into the social contract to >>that extent at least. Can you now claim taxation is >>theft, etc.? >If you steal my car, I will go and recover it. If you initiate >force to prevent me from recovering my car, I will defend myself >with a greater amount of force. In other words, if the Mafia breaks your kneecap, you break Don Corleone's? Yeah, sure. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.