« previous post | Main | next post »
January 06, 2005
How not to complain about taxes (1)
Anderson on Political Economy, Anderson on Taxes, Elizabeth Anderson: January 6, 2005
"Governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it."
That's John Locke, the great defender of private property, writing (Second Treatise of Government, ch. XI, par. 140). It pays for defenders of private property to listen to Locke, so as to avoid silly complaints about taxation. Here's one common one I hear: that government, in taxing my property, is taking away what is really mine. This complaint is often conjoined with the accusation that liberals, in order to justify taxation, must believe that the government owns all property to begin with and by rights could confiscate it all. Two points should put these fallacies to rest.
First, a technical point: the fact that some property is mine does not entail that other people do not have rightful claims to some portion of it. I am entitled to my salary; it's mine. But my children have a rightful claim to support from my income. In some states, such as California, I have a legal obligation to support my parents out of my income, if they cannot support themselves. I have to pay my bills out of my income. If I negligently injure someone, I am liable to pay them damages from my income. The fact that this income is mine does not settle anything about who else might have legitimate claims to some portion of it, and on what grounds. Note also that I did not have to give my personal consent for some of these others to have a claim on it.
So far, I've just been talking about property as a legal institution. But perhaps the complaint I am criticizing is talking about supposed "natural" property rights, following theorists such as Locke. So here's my second point: unless one is a bomb-throwing anarchist, an advocate of natural property rights must concede the legitimacy and indeed necessity of a state, at least as an institution for collective protection and impartial adjudication of claims--the so-called "minimal state." And such a state will have a legitimate claim on every member's property, to the extent necessary for everyone to pay their fair share for its maintenance, as Locke rightly insisted. Even in a minimal state, the fact that my income is mine does not constitute an argument against the taxation necessary to support the state.
In fact, Locke himself went much further than this minimal claim. In the Lockean mythology loved by libertarians, it is supposed that individuals, upon joining a minimal state, retain full claim to all of their natural property rights, except to the small extent needed to support a minimal state. The fallacy here is to suppose that, when people join together to form a state for the protection of their property, they are concerned only to protect their property from the encroachment of others. According to Locke, however, individuals form a state not just for protection against violations of their negative liberties but for the preservation of their lives (which are part of their property):
"the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislature itself, is the preservation of society, and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it." (Locke, Second Treatise, ch. 11, par. 134)
Unless one could show, contrary to fact, that death rates under publicly funded health care systems are higher than under systems that leave people to pay for their health care with whatever resources are at their disposal, some kind of publicly funded health insurance entitlements are compatible with, and may even be required by, Locke's theory of natural property rights. Moreover, Locke insists on our obligation to provide for the poor:
God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it. . . . As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another's plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise: and a man can no more justly make use of another's necessity to force him to become his vassal, by with-holding that relief God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, master him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat, offer his death or slavery. (First Treatise, ch. 4, par. 42, emphasis mine)
Locke's point is not just that some kind of entitlement-based welfare system is required by morality and built into the structure of natural property rights (the poor have a title to what they need). It's also that, to prevent a free property system from degenerating into feudalism, constraints on freedom of contract are required. Just as contracts into slavery are invalid, contracts into vassalage are. People are not entitled to use their superior bargaining power to drive others to the wall, or into subjection.
So, you can't get an argument against a welfare state from Locke's theory of natural property rights. I won't pretend that Locke was as generous as modern welfare states; his preferred system of provision for the poor was in fact very harsh. And, given the primitive state of medicine in his day, no one at the time imagined it would have done much good to universalize access to it. But nothing in his system prevents a more generous welfare state.
In fact, given the wide scope of the legislature to pass laws for the common good of society (Second Treatise, ch. 11, par. 135), it isn't even clear that the distribution of natural property before people joined a state provides a constraint on the legislative power. Locke insists that any just government establish some system of private property or other. But there is no indication that it must mirror the distribution of property people brought with them into civil society. He never says that people in civil society have a right to the goods which were theirs in the state of nature. Rather, he says "they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are their’s" (Second Treatise, ch. 11, par. 138, emphasis mine).
Does it follow that Locke, in accepting the legitimacy of taxation to promote the general welfare, including the establishment of welfare entitlements, really believes that the government owns everything and so could by rights dispose of all property arbitrarily? Of course not. He lays out the following constraints on legitimate taxation in ch. 11 of the Second Treatise:
1. It must be consistent with some system of private property or other (par. 138).
2. It cannot confiscate people's private property arbitrarily, but only in accordance with duly passed laws (par. 135-8).
3. The people must consent to these laws, not in the sense that they must obtain the personal consent of each individual, but in the sense that they have the consent of the majority of representatives in the legislature (taxation "must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving
it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them") (par. 140).
4. The laws must be for the common good of society, and in particular, promote the preservation of each member in it (par. 134-5).
5. The level of taxation cannot be so great as to reduce anyone to poverty or subjection ("It [the legislative power] . . . can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects" par. 135).
Although I'm no Lockean, I'm happy with these constraints, as I think all liberals are. (Personally, I would add another constraint, that requires the distribution of tax burdens to be fair. Locke may also implicitly be insisting on fairness in the quote that opens this post.)
So please, stop the silly rhetoric that liberals suppose that the government owns everything already. Stop the silly rhetoric that supposes that the fact that some property is mine offers any argument whatsoever against the legitimacy of taxing it.
I hasten to add that this still leaves plenty of room for reasonable dispute about proper levels of taxation. For all I've said so far, it's fine to argue that current levels of government spending are excessive, so that the levels of taxation required to support those levels are unjustified. It's fine to argue that the tax system we have unfairly distributes its burdens on the rich (I'll be posting later on that subject). It's fine to argue that our tax system stupidly rigs incentives in unproductive ways. It's even fine to argue that government welfare entitlements are illegitimate in principle, and hence that taxation to support them is unjust. (For my point here is narrow: merely that one can't get any support from Locke's theory of natural property rights, and hence not from the general idea of natural property rights, to argue this point. I'll be posting later on why I reject theories of natural property rights. My answer will surprise you.) This post is simply a plea to focus on real arguments about taxation, not silly rhetoric. But I wouldn't mind if you also learned a thing or two about Locke.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834536ae669e200d83457a71569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How not to complain about taxes (1):
» On "How not to complain about taxes" from Catallarchy
God does not play dice with the universe.
That's Albert Einstein, the great discoverer of quantum mechanics, writing. It pays for theorists of quantum mechanics to listen to Einstein, so as to avoid silly theories about uncertainty in quantum phys... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 8, 2005 5:48:44 AM
Comments
Posted by: SamChevre
Interesting points! I believe the taxation=theft equivalence comes from Bastiat, whose rule was that governments had no legitimate right to do anything individuals could not. Given Locke’s statements, one might argue that individuals legitimately can take from others, by force, what they need for survival.
I think, though, that the above interpretation may be mistaken. Note Locke’s words:
“As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another's plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise.”
Many political scientists put justice as the only legitimate concern of government. Charity is a moral virtue, but governments cannot force people to be charitable; they can force them to act charitably, but that harms their ability to actually BE charitable. This point is very strongly argued by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn; I am not a sufficient scholar of Locke to know whether he made this distinction, but the idea that charity is not a proper concern of government is fairly old.
Posted by: SamChevre | Jan 6, 2005 9:15:59 AM
Posted by: Steve
I reject Locke's conception of property rights.
My conception of property rights is where property IS mine, and can't be taken away by the government.
Therefore, my arguments are no longer silly-right?
This argument seems to be saying "Locke had certain conceptions of property, therefore you (conservatives) must have the same conceptions of property, therefore many of your arguments against taxation are invalid." But if I reject Locke's original conception, I have rejected your whole argument, haven't I?
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 6, 2005 9:18:43 AM
Posted by: D.A. Ridgely
Oh dear. Where to begin? Okay, first, those of us who (1) are self-described libertarians, (2) acknowledge that some minimum state is required for civil society and (3) recognize that taxes of some sort are required to maintain that state are not thereby committed to (A) the notion that such taxation is justified in any sense whatsoever beyond whatever justification lies in the fact that it is necessary, (B) can with complete consistency acknowledge that property in any meaningful sense is a creature of the state and (C) might just have read enough Locke to disagree with him. Who, for example, other than whatever is left of the Marxist crowd still believes in a labor theory of value?
If Ms Anderson will cease implying that (all? most?) libertarians largely base their views on a naïve reading of Locke, I will refrain from implying that contemporary progressives largely base their views on a naïve reading of Marx. Yes, the woods are full of naïve libertarians (and naïve progressives), but libertarianism does not require for its defense any natural property rights argument at all. Locke also argues a social contract justification of the state with which I and many others disagree.
Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jan 6, 2005 10:06:25 AM
Posted by: David Velleman
Steve:
As Liz pointed out, Locke's theory of property rights is often embraced by libertarians and others who object to taxation, because Locke believed in natural property rights, which existed before the formation of civil society and which therefore placed restrictions on what sort of civil institutions could legitimately be formed. Locke is perceived by libertarians as their friend, and Liz is arguing that he is not so friendly to their complaints as they may think.
It's fine for you to reject Locke's theory of property rights. But then you will have to explain your alternative theory. And here is the real challenge for any theory of property rights -- the challenge with which Locke's discussion of property begins. Virtually all of your property is yours because you got it from someone else whose property it was antecedently: someone gave a piece of his property as a gift, or paid it to you in return for your labor, or exchanged it with you in trade. Your rights in that property are entirely dependent on that other person's property rights: if what he gave you or paid you with or exchanged with you wasn't his property to begin with, then it isn't yours now, after all. The right to transfer property to another owner is, in fact, one of the rights in the bundle that constitute property rights.
Now, where did that other person get his property? In our modern world, he probably got it from some previous owner, too; and that owner got it from a previous owner, and so on. But this cannot go on for ever. In order to explain your property rights, you need to explain how property rights can get started. There must have been a point at which no one owned anything (except perhaps his own body), and then there must have been a way for people to acquire property rights in things that had no previous owner.
This is the problem with which Locke begins his discussion of property rights. And his solution to the problem is a brilliant intellectual achievement. Reject it if you like. But if you have no alternative explanation, then you are left with nothing at all to say for your property rights.
Posted by: David Velleman | Jan 6, 2005 10:09:58 AM
Posted by: Elizabeth Anderson
Steve,
My claim is not that conservatives all believe in Locke's notion of property. It's just that saying that something is "mine" doesn't settle any arguments about the justice of taxation or of anyone else's claims to some portion of one's property. Even saying that something is "mine" by a natural property right doesn't settle any such arguments. Do you believe that you are free to negligently injure other people without having to pay them compensation from your property, just because the property is "your's"?
Sure, you can lay out an argument for a particular conception of property according to which taxation is unjust. But then you'd need an argument. A bare claim that something is "mine", begs all of the important questions and does not constitute an argument.
Posted by: Elizabeth Anderson | Jan 6, 2005 10:11:21 AM
Posted by: Don Herzog
Just a couple of follow-up notes.
Is democratic decision-making a sorry second-best to individual consent? How could Locke use an innocent "i.e." to slide from "his own consent" to "the consent of the majority"? In Locke's day, the crown could -- and did -- approach individuals and demand benevolences or gifts. The crown could -- and did -- demand loans, and it was an open secret they'd never be repaid. Individuals couldn't refuse these requests; they couldn't incur the monarch's enmity. But a parliamentary majority can refuse.
Is state bureaucracy a sorry second-best to entrepreneurial markets? Before the rise of bureaucracies, there was privatized tax-collecting. After the parliamentary vote, the state's legal right to raise taxes was worthless without an IRS. So they sold it off, province by province, district by district, to "tax farmers." These private individuals paid the state for the right to tax the locals. The state extracted a bit less than the expected value of the tax. The tax-farmer pocketed whatever he then managed to collect, so of course his interests weren't in fair administration of the law. His interests were in being predatory. Confronted with this entrepreneurial zeal, people longed for -- public bureaucracy.
Posted by: Don Herzog | Jan 6, 2005 10:39:05 AM
Posted by: Bernard
Sam, it's well worth noting that even Bastiat recognised the necessity of taxation in funding the government functions he recognised as just.
'Finally, the eternal principle that the state should not be a producer, but the provider of security for the producers, necessarily involves economy and order in public finances; consequently, this principle alone renders prosperity possible and a just distribution of taxes.'
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss3.html
He was a devout minarchist, to be sure, but he did not reject taxation per se (simply the conditions and the justifications for the greater part of it in the era he lived).
It's also worth noting that he draws his theory of natural property rights from direct reference to God.
'There are some political theorists who are very much concerned with knowing how God ought to have made man. We, for our part, study man as God has made him. We observe that he cannot live without providing for his wants, that he cannot provide for his wants without labor, and that he will not perform any labor if he is not sure of applying the fruit of his labor to the satisfaction of his wants. That is why we believe that property has been divinely instituted, and that the object of human law is its protection or security.'
http://bastiat.org/en/property_law.html
I can quite see the thought process by which a theist would deduce property as a divine right (though as an atheist I obviously disagree). Non-theists, however, need to look elsewhere for allies.
Posted by: Bernard | Jan 6, 2005 10:43:11 AM
Posted by: Matt
I'm curious to hear more about this Locke-based welfare idea. Like most people I've read only the 2nd treatis, so I'm ignorant about the context and content of the first, where the quote I'm interested in comes from. Is Locke arguing for more than the sort of manditory "poor relief" necessary to preserve stability that thinkers as diverse as Hobbes, Heyak, and Milton Friedman have aruged for? His idea of people having a "title" to this relief would seem to argue for it, but calling it a duty of "charity" would seem to put him more in the poor relief camp than the welfare camp, where the latter is interpreted to be a claim that providing a decent social minimum is a matter of justice, not charity or self-interest. I don't suspect he has a worked out view on this, for historical reasons, but I'd be curious to hear more which line of support for the poor you think follows from Locke's position.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 6, 2005 11:14:21 AM
Posted by: Mona
Elizabeth: if I negligently harm someone I have violated a duty I had to them, and they are entitled to some of my property in order to "become whole." My obligation arises because I took something from them, such as the use of their limbs or the life of a family member. Similarly, I owe a duty of support to my minor children by virtue of bringing them into the world. The operative word here is "duty," which devolves on me by something(s) I did.
I have no duty to provide charity to people whom I have not harmed, but whom the govt thinks are worthy of it. Thus, the govt has no moral justification in coercing me to make such contributions of my property.
Posted by: Mona | Jan 6, 2005 11:19:58 AM
Posted by: Steve
How about an alternate argument?
"Nozick had certain a certain conception of property, X.
Many liberal economic arguments conflict with X.
Therefore, many liberal economic arguments are silly.
Since noone has actually refuted X, here, we have to assume that X is valid."
I could repeat this for every thinker (Hobbes, Rawls, Marx, etc etc ad infinitum). How about the Bible ("The Bible says Y. Many modern ideas conflict with Y. Therefore, many modern ideas are silly."). Valid? if so, you've got a lot of writing to do before you vote...
Note that I haven't actually argued for X (or Y). I've simply appealed to authority (Locke said X, the Bible said Y), presuming that such an appeal makes it a valid argument.
There are a few arguable points in the post-for example "the fact that some property is mine does not entail that other people do not have rightful claims to some portion of it. I am entitled to my salary; it's mine. But my children have a rightful claim to support from my income. In some states, such as California, I have a legal obligation to support my parents out of my income, if they cannot support themselves. I have to pay my bills out of my income. If I negligently injure someone, I am liable to pay them damages from my income." I disagree that all these cases are morally similar (the legal obligation to support parents and children, the legal obligation to pay my own bills compared to a moral obligation to provide for the poor, as two examples). And similarly, your argument that health care is justified (or even required) under Locke makes a point that can be debated, but the overall structure of the post is "Locke said it, therefore refute Locke, or accept that your arguments are silly."
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 6, 2005 11:25:54 AM
Posted by: Terrier
Don Herzog, they may pine for public bureaucracy again because the current administration passed a law allowing the IRS to use private collectors!
As for the whole thread: the subtext of the arguments that bother me is not really "it is mine!" but "I would agree to pay taxes if only I agreed to every single item of government spending, since I don't like spending on X then I am only being forced to pay taxes." This is the complaint of a spoiled child and it illustrates what I mean by there being no faith in our institutions. In my parents generation, they felt like they WERE the government - that's what I was taught. If you deny the social contract you can pretty much make any childish argument you want at that point but are you really an American anymore? I certainly don't want to run the thought police but imagine yourself a physician in a convention of witch doctors - could you have a useful discussion of a particular disease? It is that disconnect that plagues us in our attempts to reach some libertarians. The right wing has less problem with this because they adopted the argument that the government was a force working against the citizenry and have consistently pushed it. Will they will be able to maintain this fiction when it finally sinks into the populace that they control the government?
Posted by: Terrier | Jan 6, 2005 11:47:48 AM
Posted by: Jay Cline
As a conservative, I take exception to being lumped with those (ie Steve) who either fail to understand or accept Locke, as Elizabeth Anderson so aptly explained. Taxation is not the defining issue, in my mind, behind the differences of modern era Left/Right arguments. The difference is that I do not believe in creating monolithic unresponsive bureaucracies to implement the ‘charitable’ nature and title described by Locke.
Don Herzog’s backhanded rationale for “public bureaucracies” (if I am not misunderstanding his point) is hyperbole. Private tax farmers are just as bad as monolithic Orwellian states. Ultimately, taxation and the charity of Locke is about redistribution. As I have argued in the school choice debate vis-a-vis portable vouchers, democratizing the decision-making process is best.
Posted by: Jay Cline | Jan 6, 2005 11:54:41 AM
Posted by: Szabo
But there is no indication that it must mirror the distribution of property people brought with them into civil society. (E. Anderson)
Perhaps this is a response to Terrier's concerns at 11:47. In regard to the quote above (Anderson explicating Locke), it needs to be pointed out that the very idea of a property distribution PRIOR to civil society is nonsensical.
I think that those who want to say that all their income is theirs absolutely and that all gov't taxation is a theft of it (as well as those who demand that all gov't spending accord with their predilections if their tax burden is to be justified) are under the spell of the notion of a state of nature from which people emerge into civil society.
But I think that its pretty clear that "civil society" is first (at least some tenuous form) and property is second. (At least they are 'co-original.') Without social practices and laws, the whole notion of property just would not be there for libertarians to appeal to. Now, I am no Rousseauian on the whole, and there is nothing inherently wrong with arguing for lower taxes, but in as much as I think that the contract theory of the state in it Lockean form ignores the priority of society, I guess I am.
So, Terrier. I think that libertarians have an account of the social contract (an erroneous one, in my opinion) of considerable pedigree.
Posted by: Szabo | Jan 6, 2005 12:01:30 PM
Posted by: D.A. Ridgely
Yes, I think the best we can say about democratic decision making is that it is a sorry second-best to individual consent. The fact that we have managed to do even worse historically doesn’t change that. At some point I think we just have to acknowledge that we do, in fact, coerce each other in order to sustain the state and that recognition of that fact entails that we coerce each other as little as possible. While I appreciate the notion that every individual’s right to life appears to entail a moral claim on whatever we count as property or wealth sufficient to sustain that life, I am unwilling for various reasons to agree that such moral claim suffices to warrant a concomitant legal right or that the state is the necessary or proper mechanism for dealing with such claims.
Ms Anderson’s argument is sound as far as it goes: a glib reading of or ignorant reference to Locke (or anyone else) is a poor argument against taxation. I think it’s a bit of a straw-man argument, but perhaps there really are more faux-Lockeans out there than I imagine. I will admit it has been many, many years since I read Locke carefully, but I seem to recall that what I especially admired him for (in his epistemological work, I believe) was his unwillingness on grounds of common sense to accept certain conclusions which his reasoning might otherwise have led him to accept. If I am mistaken about Locke in that particular regard, I nonetheless think it is a salubrious attitude for theorists to adopt.
I don’t know how obligated property rights advocates are to give an account that overcomes Mr. Velleman’s ‘quasi-cosmological’ objection. How we got to our contemporary institution of property seems to me a less compelling question than how and why we should either maintain or change it. I admit, however, that that is not an entirely satisfactory response to the underlying concerns both he and Ms Anderson wish to press about the claims of property rights vis a vis our sense of distributive justice.
Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jan 6, 2005 12:02:28 PM
Posted by: Bret
Nice post!
However, I was thinking that Locke's concern with the preservation of lives was more protection from harm ("no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" (sect. 6)) as opposed to having universal health care provided.
Perhaps more interesting is that Nozick also started with Locke's Treatises and ended up (after several hundred pages of intricate detail) with completely different conclusions. It's been too long since I read Anarchy, State, Utopia but I remember thinking that if one starts with the concept of Lockean natural property rights, that Nozick's analysis was moderately compelling. I'll have to review it now.
Posted by: Bret | Jan 6, 2005 12:02:47 PM
Posted by: Szabo
Steve,
No one is asking you to appeal to an authority (nor are they appealing to authority) but to offer some reasons for your own account of property. You could do this by playing off of what you think is wrong with Locke's account.
There is more to an argument than validity... there's soundness. You need to establish the falsity of Locke's premises and the truth of yours. (Or at least make Locke's look implausible and yours plausible.)
Posted by: Szabo | Jan 6, 2005 12:17:08 PM
Posted by: Mark O
I'd also take it that Ms Anderson would also allow the minions on the right to take to task the interpretation of "fair". It seems to have missed her list of what we might be allowed to argue. :)
Posted by: Mark O | Jan 6, 2005 12:28:11 PM
Posted by: Mark O
Oops. My fault. On rereading, "fair" is included (albeit as only unfair for the rich).
Posted by: Mark O | Jan 6, 2005 12:29:40 PM
Posted by: Chris
Mona,
You don’t know how this pains me to disagree with the statement “the govt has no moral justification in coercing me to make such contributions of my property.” Using the US Constitution as an example, Americans granted the federal govt the right to tax our incomes.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 6, 2005 12:40:24 PM
Posted by: Bernard
Chris,
does the Constitution grant the government the right to tax our income for the provision of charity to those it deems worthy?
If not, then you haven't identified a problem with what Mona says:
'I have no duty to provide charity to people whom I have not harmed, but whom the govt thinks are worthy of it. Thus, the govt has no moral justification in coercing me to make such contributions of my property.' - her original statement.
Posted by: Bernard | Jan 6, 2005 12:50:17 PM
Posted by: secret asian man
The question is - if you are willing to make this close a reading of Locke and rely so heavily upon his authority to support a welfare state, are you willing to have his authority used to support his continued invocation of religion in the state?
Posted by: secret asian man | Jan 6, 2005 12:59:45 PM
Posted by: Terrier
Bernard, Mona's argument is exactly the one that makes my cackles rise - there are actually plenty of things that the government spends money on that I oppose, if it got to the point where I felt there was no recourse for me I would take Thoreau's principled stand and just not pay my taxes (and like him cheerfully accept the consequences) but as long as I feel that I have a chance to affect government policy I will try to do so and not WHINE about an issue that is under my control. Join this democracy - or at least don't complain to me when you don't!
Posted by: Terrier | Jan 6, 2005 1:07:33 PM
Posted by: Doug
Elizabeth's initial post has got me to thinking. Her point is that others have a claim on my property.
She says:
"The fact that some property is mine does not entail that other people do not have rightful claims to some portion of it."
It seems to me that others have a claim on ME not on my property. If I incur obligations then I am responsible. I may, for example, sell some of my property to meet the obligation but that is not at all the same as saying that others have a claim to my property.
I have a feeling that this is a significant distinction and our thinking must start from that point and not an incorrect starting point.
I am not my property.
Posted by: Doug | Jan 6, 2005 1:14:27 PM
Posted by: AlanC9
"does the Constitution grant the government the right to tax our income for the provision of charity to those it deems worthy?"
Well, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money on the "general Welfare of the United States." That's pretty damn broad.
Posted by: AlanC9 | Jan 6, 2005 1:20:19 PM
Posted by: Terrier
Doug, if your kids have a claim to your support does that mean you can give them money, stocks, jewelry, or sports equipment but deny them food? I think a court would force you to remove the chains from your refrigerator. If your lawnmower damages my car do I have a claim to your left hand or can you satisfy my injury with property? Is it an eye for an eye? Or would you rather file a homeowner's insurance claim? In our society it is specifically property that you are liable for and not body parts.
Posted by: Terrier | Jan 6, 2005 1:37:42 PM