NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48413

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.4 KB | 70 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucla-mic!MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU!ECL4JN2
From: [e-mail] (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Individualism & the Common Weal
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: MVS NNTP News Reader <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mvs.oac.ucla.edu
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:14:30 PST
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]>, on 11 Nov 92 18:17:59 GMT,
[e-mail] (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>
>>  Good will. The opposite choice (which is force) is illegitimate,
>>and does not work.
>
>I've asked this before, but I will try again: since owning property is
>based on the use of force, why is force an illegitimate when it taxes
>property?  Stated in another way, without the government, you have no
>property except what you can defend with your own private force.
>Given that you would rather live where you are than in Bosnia, why is
>it looting when the government takes your property in taxes?  It is
>the government which defined that property as yours in the first place.
>"My property" is a *legal* definition, and without government, there
>are no laws and hence no legal properties.
>
Socialists are quite fond of making the claim that owning property is
based on force, but this is no more so than it is of life in general. If
somebody attacks you with intent to do you physical harm or worse, you
had better damn well be prepared to apply force in self-defense or die.
Likewise, if someone is prepared to steal your property, and you are
unwilling to defend it, you might just as well be prepared to die as
well, for you'll not have the means of survival in the real world.

Your right to property is a natural one and does not depend upon the
existence of governments to bestow upon you any such rights. Where
governments arise, they assume to themselves the monopolistic use of
force for the purpose of exacting punishment upon those violators of the
rights of individuals within their jurisdictions. Since they prevent
you from the exercise of your natural rights, they are obligated to
indemnify you by supplying the corresponding services of defense,
courts, and police. Whether they may legitimately do so through the
vehicle of taxation or whether they must do so through non-coercive
means is a controversial area among libertarians. However, this does not
negate the fact that the ninety percent or so exacted from the citizenry
for purposes other than those legitimate to government is definitely
theft.

>What I am saying in various was is, Render unto Caesar that which is
>Caesar's.  Or at least find an argument that it isn't Caesar's.
>
As happened often, the Pauline Christian Church, operating outside of
the context of 1st-century Judean culture, got the import of the message
wrong. To paraphrase the real meaning of the text: "Caesar
should go back to Rome where he belongs; the land of Judea belongs
solely to God and to the Jewish people."

        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
[e-mail]               - John Adams