|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Do you see why this isn't a compelling argument to me? I don't disagree with you if we're using exclusively a law framework. But I'm not talking about legal theft but the philosophical concept.
I do, but I dont think your stance can be supported. For example
By "actually exists" you're referring to one endorsed by the law. I'm referring to the interpretations of theft that we all subjectively hold for all aspects of our lives except for the one exception of government. It isn't by the law that anybody feels "this is mine and it would be wrong if somebody took it". My agenda is to show why we use that sentiment for virtually all things yet we abandon it with regards to government.
We dont all hold the same interpretations of theft. The only reason it appears that way on FTR is because we are all from countries that, at minimum, started with the same legal system; the English Common Law. We each have very similar views of what property ownership is, and what theft is, because thats what the common law of the land was. It goes further than that though, as most of the people in these 'english' countries are Christian, and the 8th commandment says not to steal. (Many religious rules are actually laws, so much so that they are indistinguishable from actual laws. Christinaity even more so than most). So when you say we all subjectively hold the same things, its not much of a surprise. The law has told us we have these rights, and that its wrong to steal.
But we dont ALL hold the same views, and thats why subjective-property rights fail. In the United States, we say that we have a legal right to make something novel and unique, and then prevent others from copying it for 20 years (patents). This is a property right. Many other countries have similar rules, but not all of them. In fact, many countries wouldnt recognize your right at all. Thus while you own the work and the idea in America, you have no recourse if someone else "steals" that idea in a different country. However, the people in that country wouldnt consider it stealing, and may even balk at the idea that you could even own the invention in the first place.
Closer to home, many people who torrent movies or music dont consider what they do to be stealing. I would disagree, but they dont recognize that.
I agree that everyone has an idea regarding ownership. My view correlates identically with the law of the land, and if there are any loopholes I decide them in my favor. But there are people who believe otherwise, and believe they own more, or less, than this view. Property law, and theft, are constructs that deal with this problem. They create an objective basis for ownership. Whether people agree with this basis is completely irrelevant though. A theif may believe he has a rightful claim to property just because he wants it more than someone else, but his non-acceptance of current property law is irrelevant. His subjective feeling isnt factored in at all. Its whats objective that matters with property, but the only objective rules regarding property ownership are laws.
To be clear, I am not denying this. I am not making a legal argument. I'm making a moral and conceptual one. I don't see the relevance of the law to this.
I assert that you cannot have property rights without law. It is irrelevant where that law comes from (a huge government, a small government, a religion, a family, or a negotiated decision from several businesses), there is no right to own without recognized rights.
Without law, "ownership" falls into just possession and control...and as soon as someone else possesses and controls something, they own it. Whether that be by violence, deceit, or whatever.
You'd probably technically do away with property rights but not the concept of property. I'm appealing to the concept and the logic typically used to describe theft and justify taxation.
Property exists subjectively, I agree. Its the concept of ownership and theft that require government. I can scream from the mountaintops that something is mine all that I want, it doesnt make it so unless there is some law granting me that right.
I disagree. I used to believe this back when I wasn't a libertarian.
I think we care about the logic of it. In practice, all sorts of end runs can be made around taxation to say it isn't theft, but if the logic is fully deconstructed it turns into a situation where theft actions are justified for social contract purposes.
I didnt mean for that to be a personal attack, and hope it wasnt taken as so. But there is no denying that theft is an emotionally charged concept, and calling something theft has a strong effect on people.
I have no idea what you're asking me to prove. This is conceptual, philosophical, logical stuff. I wouldn't know where to start to prove anything.
I'm just asking for any definition of theft or ownership, which does not require law in some form. It isnt possible though. Without law, all we have is possession and control...things that are easily undermined. A world full of Rocket Racoons is a world without ownership and without theft.
My entire argument relies on this assertion, that theft cannot exist without law. It cant exist without some objective rules governing ownership that are universally held. I believe that this must be the case, because otherwise there is no point in claiming something is theft. If you see that you're being taxed and yell "thief", and the government sees that you earned a paycheck without paying taxes and yells "thief", what was the point of yelling thief at all?
Cool. I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about the logic each individual uses to justify taxation. The type of point I hope to convey is that if we were to imagine some entity other than our own government engaging in taxation, we would be super not okay with it and call it all sorts of things like theft and extortion. As mentioned before, the appeal to a social contract is an acknowledgement that taxation is an immoral thing akin to theft and extortion but is okay in the scope of the social contract common good ideal.
I agree, but its irrelevant. It is only the government that has the power to tax, so of course it is unconscionable for another entity to do it.
Although, if a business were to impose a tax anyway, and enforce such taxing, the correct term would probably be extortion (this single point is purely semantics). But...thats only because we have laws against extortion.
Anyway, the reason taxation isnt theft is because both are laws, and both were made by government. When you live under a government, you dont get to choose which laws to follow. You say that theft is some universal thing, but it only exists when you have a recognized right to own. That right comes from law, and taxation is an exception to it.
----
Side note: my fiance is a libertarian. The eerie thing is its possible he has control of Wuf/Renton's account, because he tends to respond identically to the points I raise.
|