| | Kurt, a sound theory of propery rights is necessary here. The argument you are facing assumes that "society" is owned by the various members. First it would be helpful to define "society". It strikes me as a definition that, without proper context, is pretty much useless, in that it doesn't differentiate between a whole lot. Is society your neighborhood, county, town, state, country, continent? Does the landmass that defines this society have to be continous? Does an individual who resides within that admittedly arbitrary geographical area have to interact with other people to be considered a "member", or is simply inhabiting the space between the imaginary borders enough to force his membership. Forcing your adversary to answer these questions will help you to see where he's coming from.
Starting at the beginning, the primary question is one of self ownership, and there are three options:
- An individual owns his own body.
- Another individual owns his body (a.k.a. slavery).
- Every other person in society (see above) owns an equal portion of his body.
After considering these options:
- An individual must own his own body because...
- Ownership by another individual would imply that that individual owns their body, so this option refutes itself.
- Regarding everyone owning equal portions of everyone else, most people would reject this absurdity outright. If you face resistance on this point, give up, your adversary is a lost cause (or just feeling pedantic).
After concluding that an individual owns his body, we can infer property rights concerning objects. If I pick some berries, they must necessarily be mine. I have transformed them from their natural state, and since I own my body and the labor it produces, no one else can logically claim that which I have produced (as I understand it this a Lockean view of property).
Ditto for the land itself. If I plant some seeds, I have the right to reap what I have sown. If I build a house, and fence off some land, I have mixed my labor with the land and made it mine (a.k.a homesteading). The right of self-ownership also implies the freedom to transfer ownership of various items in my possesion, including land.
Now consider, what is the difference between the idea that every other person in society owns an equal portion of an individual, and the idea that society (a.k.a every other person) owns the land that we have demonstrated is rightfully posessed by individuals. Thus we see that the idea that if society decides to rob an individual or individuals (a.k.a. tax them), it is done voluntarily because these individuals do not relinquish the property which is rightfully theirs, is patently absurd.
It's important to remember that individuals necessarily precede "society". Consider a practical example:
Individuals A-Z settle and establish ownership within a given area which for the sake of argument we will deem a "society". After a period of time, individuals A through R decide that service X is needed, therefore they will collect tax Y from all individuals in this society. Individuals S through Z decide that service X is not worth the tax Y that is demanded, and decline to pay the tax. Kurt's opponent would no doubt argue that if these individuals do not wish to submit to the tax, then should remove themselves from society! But since we know that these individuals own themselves, their property, and their posessions, and have the right to retain these posessions which are rightfully theirs unmolested, that this demand is outrageous and fallacious.
If this tax (and all others) were truly voluntary, then S-Z's refusal to pay would start there and end there, but consider what really happens to tax protesters: they are summarily thrown in jail and their assets seized. That hardly seems voluntary to me! Perhaps the individuals making this argument have been fooled by the fact that most people submit to taxation out of fear that their non-compliance will result in the initiation of force against them, but this is ignorant. If I hand my wallet over to a mugger at gunpoint, you wouldn't say I did it "voluntarily", would you?
I think it would be helpful to remember what Ayn Rand said about the "public" (and I'm paraphrasing)...
There is no such entity as "the public", there are only individuals. Therefore anything done in the name of the public good, really means for the benefit of some individuals at the expense of other individuals.
-JF-
*NOTE* This post was as much for my benefit as Kurt's, comments and constructive criticism are welcome.
|
|
