To fully understand Property Rights we first need to grasp certain definitions.Property: What is earned, made, created, bought, inherited, given, trade for and already owned, all without coercion.
Infringe: Take, damage and/or control the use of, without uncoerced permission.
With these two definitions we now have Property Rights as...
What I earn, make, create, buy, inherit, am given, trade for and already own, all without coercion, is My property and no person shall infringe upon it.
A Violation of an individual's Property Rights is Wrong.
Using just the above two sentences we can run a society as we now have a Moral Base from which everyone can live. Any decision effecting society can be run by the two sentences and we can have our answer about going ahead with it, or if it is right or wrong.
So let's see it in action...
1. Two children are playing. One child desires the toy of the other child and grabs it. The owner of the toy begins to cry and make a fuss. Or, the other child want the toy but there is resistance from the toy's owner. Either case, the parents tell the crying/resisting child "You have to learn to share". Right or wrong?
Answer: Wrong. The owner of the toy was not asked for the toy and was Coerced into giving up his control and use of it. Far better for the parents to tell the other child, "You do not take toys or things that do not belong to you". This will instill a Right/Wrong value system into the child. The other way teaches the child that it's alright to take as it can always be referred to a higher authority who will give permission and make it so.
The child also learns there are no consistent rules as it never sees its parents share the car, house or other items with other adults.
2. A restaurant owner receives a letter from the local authorities informing him "for the health of all patrons, smoking is now banned inside all eating establishments. Infringements of this new Law will incur a $1,000 fine." Right or Wrong?
Answer: Wrong. Despite the reason for the law, it is coercing the Owner of the restaurant and Controlling his property (the restaurant) without his uncoerced permission. Far better to allow the patrons to decide for themselves whether they will eat in a restaurant which allows smoking and for the restaurant owner to also decide if they will allow inside smoking or not.
3. The local authorities decide to make the previously Optional Ambulance Subscription (pay $x per year to the Ambulance and if you need an ambulance it won't cost you anything) into a Compulsory Ambulance Subscription. They then add the subscription fee to your electricity bill. Don't pay the subscription and your electricity is cut off. Right or Wrong?
Answer: Wrong. They are Controlling the electricity supply company. And they are coercing you into paying a fee you might not want to pay. Even if you are a previous subscriber to the ambulance, that you are now Forced into paying the fee makes it wrong. It doesn't matter if the excuse is, "Seniors who don't subscribe cannot afford the Hefty fee if they need an ambulance." That is Not my problem. By coercing payment from me, they are turning me into a sacrificial animal who is now supporting the ambulance use of seniors, whether I like it or not. And it's little solace to be told, if I don't want to pay it I have a choice and can go without electricity. Our civilization is dependent upon that power, they are giving me a choiceless choice.
4. Income tax. The mandatory theft of part of your income for whatever Sounds Good Reason they come up with - roads, rail, other infrastructure, police, fire department, social services, pension for old age, etc.
Answer: Wrong. I earned that money and they Take it. If I do not pay it I am fined and/or jailed. As such, they take it under coercion and are basically telling me, let us take a little now or we'll take a lot more as punishment. Again, turning me into a sacrificial animal to support the voting needy hordes and interest groups and other Projects of the government's which I object to - such as free health care.
If it is wrong for me to come into your house, threaten you with harm if you object to my actions, take $100 out of your wallet, and then go buy some medicine with it, or even pay rent with it, then it is equally wrong when a Gang who calls itself Government does it - takes money from you and gives it to others for medicine and living accommodation.
5. Business Licensing. Where before I can conduct business I need to get a Permit to do so.
Answer: Wrong. If I do not pay the license, but then do business, I will be fined and/or be sent to jail. Hence I am coerced into paying the license. And as such, the license is nothing more than a sanctioned-by-them bribe. If I pay one Officer it is called a bribe. But when my funds go into a communal pool from which they all get a cut of (which they then call their income) then it is considered ok. Either way, and no matter what they call it, as it involved meaningless permission and coercion it is wrong.
This is not to say that certain Standards cannot be adhered to. But that "paying for permission under threat of fine or imprisonment" is wrong. Let the Market create it's own groups which track standards and which consumers can consult before doing business. And let's remember, Bought governmental permission doesn't mean you are any good and guarantees nothing. And the government bodies issuing those Licenses are toothless tigers - as many people find out when they go to them for help about shonky business owners.
But what about the shonky fly by night guys? First, it doesn't stop them now, does it? Second, if people are Raised with Property Rights as their moral standard instead of the "it's ok to take from others" standard we have now, such people will almost be a thing of the past.
Look. The fact of the matter is, our current system Punishes Effort and hard work by taxing it and Rewards Laziness by paying it from the taxed money stolen from the productive. With such a base from which to work from, is it any wonder we have such societal turmoil as it is?
Our current society is a Collectivist one. It turns the productive members into Sacrificial Animals to keep the unproductive alive and for the Common Good (whatever is meant by Good and for whomever defines it at the time). And CONvinces us that this is Nobel and Good - to give up your life for others. As such, theft is the order of the day - from the highest government echelons all the way down to the lowest criminal. And such is even taught in schools and promoted by religious and do-gooder groups. The result is the mess we have now.
A society based on Property Rights will see an end to that theft as such theft would be going against the core of the system.
Doubt it? Then ask me any "What about this..." question you can think of. I'll run it by the Property Rights Barometer and give you your answer, and why the answer is what it is.
11 Comments:
The argument for taxation is this:
If the government doesn't tax people, how can it afford a police force? How can it run the entire legal system?
If there is no legal system - no police - what happens "after" some one kills a person?
Is it ok for a person to roam around naked on the streets?
Question: Is it ok for a person to roam around naked on the streets?
My Answer: Yes, if they want to.
Is it practical?
No. Because the main reason people venture out of their homes is to conduct business. As those businesses determine their own admittance standards, to keep maximum customers happy the businesses will NOT let a naked person into their store.
The result will be, a naked person can walk the streets but not conduct business. So the poit of walking naked is mooted. And this says nothing of protecting ones-self from the environment, which nakedness does not do.
Question: If the government doesn't tax people, how can it afford a police force? How can it run the entire legal system?
My Answer: The entire legal system is predicated on laws I didn't give my written agreement to. They are currently FORCED onto me whether I like it or not. I could be found Guilty of damageless and victimless crimes, such as speeding and smoking pot at home.
The police force do NOT prevent crime. They respond to crimes committed, or try to Catch people in the act of Victimless crimes, like speeding or non-seatbelt wearing.
They may takes reports of crime, such as Theft, but do NOT try to catch the thief. If the thief is caught due to some OTHER reason, my goods may be found in their possession and thus the theft is Solved. But otherwise it is not.
Example: Man reports 11 foot row boat take from his private pontoon in the canal estate he lives. An hour later a man further along the canal reports find an 11 foot row boat dragged onto his pontoon by kids. All reported to the same police station.
Two days later the men discover each other via Friends of Friends of neighbor of neighbors, who heard the different sides of the crimes and realised they could be linked. They Solved their problem and got their property back.
To first is to know, the Police do very little by way of Preventing any crime. And Investigations, even NOW, are often sucessfully carried out by Private Investigators.
Gated Communities already have Private Security firms. They are part of the Body Corporate Fees which are paid by the residents who Voluntarily agree to live there with thoe fees already in place. If they don't like the fees they can choose to live elsewhere where no such fees are levied for such security.
The Legal System is Clogged with cases of victimless crimes. I know of one jurisdiction which makes $30,000 a WEEK from fines for Pot Smoking. And during the recent Easter Road Blitz, 14,000 drivers were Fined for various victimless traffic offenses. Think, a cop who sits by the side of the road in a Speed Camera Vehicle. If the camera goes off once every six minutes with a $145 fine, that Trap just made $1,450 in an hour. That "Trap" didn't prevent anything.
Much of the legal system is already self funded. Lawyers take on work Pro Bono and No Win No Fee. So the only parts of the system which need funding are the Govt parts - judges, prosecutors, etc. And that could easily be run in a more User Pays way.
The legal system also relies on the willingness of the parties involved. I enter a Contract in Writing, that COntract stipulates the Jurisdiction it is governed by. It could easily have a Private Groups as the deciding group - as many Business Negatiations already do. So nothing new there.
Question: If there is no Police Force, what happens after someone kills a person?
My Answer: First, who said there was no Policing Force - or more accurately, Policing Force. Property Rights gives us Right and Wrong answers. People are responsible for the Wrongs they do upon others and Owe compensation. THAT is what being responsible for your actions is all about.
If a City adopts a Gated Community system, then the residents of that city agree to abide by its Property Rights Enforecement System which is upheld by its Private Policing Force - services provided by private policing/security companies.
Don't agree? Move to another city, or out of the boundaries of this city. Either way, living or visiting there signifies your Voluntary Agreement to its rules.
Barring that, option two is what used to happen in the past. Private Justice. Lynch Mobs.
Know this about murder. Is the vast majority of cases, it is committed by someone known to the victim and is usually about money or sex or both.
E.g. Man kills wife because she's having an affair, or he's having an affair and want to leave without paying Support, or also wants insurance money.
It doesn't take a smart person to solve a crime - a property rights violation of some kind.
Roaming around naked is just an example of not touching another person's property - yet making them uncomfortable.
Another similar question: Is it ok if a person installs a big machine in his own home that makes the whole city smell like crap?
Or maybe - play audio 24/7 sooo loud that no one can go to sleep?
Air - its free. No one owns the air. By playing with air, a person is not infringing upon any ones property rights - right?
--
Obviously there is a flip side. And that is about drawing the line.
Eg: How much should a person wear in public? How much noise is loud enough?
Where the current system breaks down is in drawing these lines.
For eg: In Bombay, roaming around naked is a crime. But kissing in public is a crime too.
And imho,
Countries and governments are just extensions of gated communities.
If you don't like them - you're free to leave them.
Its true - you have not given your written agreement to country laws. But they've been grand fathered onto you.
Same way - that a kid born in a gated community has to follow its rules - even before he has given his written agreement and has learnt to write.
Countries and governments are just extensions of gated communities.
If you don't like them - you're free to leave them.
And that's where your point falls down. You are NOT free to leave them (countries). If you want to leave you have to Ask Permission and also Ask Permission of the country you are going to. And when you get there, Ask permission to work, or stay longer.
Gates Communities are VOLUNTARY. Countries are NOT. Countries use COERCION, gated communities use the Free Market to attract customers.
Gated Communities do NOT take money from your income to help pay for the houseing or food of others in that community. They do NOT infringe upon your property rights. Goverments DO.
===
Being naked in public does NOT mean other people will be uncomfortable. If you were to use a person's uncomfortableness as a guide to Law Passing then there is no end in sight to what becomes a No No - no tattoos, no shaved heads, no Tought Looking people, no people with red hair (for those with a phobia of red haired people), no mongoloids, no tall people, no black/brown/yellow or whatever color people, no jews, muslims, christians, and so on.
A person making all the air in the city smell like crap IS infringing upon people, by Forcing them to inhale their foul smell. Same applies to Loud Music. Besides, it shows a complete lack of regard for the self - as self interest must prevail. Make everything smell bad and chances are someone will do you in. Play loud music all the time and someone will smash you equipment, if you refuse to lower the volume when asked.
The lines are Easily seen. It's only a problem when YOU want to impose property right infringements on some things and not others.
Asking silly questions about someone walking around in the nude is pointless. In fact, even having such a Law is pointless because the overwhelming vast majority Want to wear clothes so don't need such silly laws.
Laws are a waste of time because those who would abide by them don't need them to know what's right or wrong, and those who do NOT abide by them disregard them anyway even thought they know they are doing wrong.
I agree that laws are pointless for the most part.
With the nakedness - and the loud noise examples - I was just trying to show that laws based "only" on property rights are not perfect either.
>self interest must prevail. Make
>everything smell bad and chances
>are someone will do you in. Play
>loud music all the time and
>someone will smash you equipment,
>if you refuse to lower the volume
>when asked.
Thats like some one saying wear short clothes (or no clothes) and you will be raped, isn't it?
I'm not sure if that is a right excuse.
>A person making all the air in the
>city smell like crap IS infringing
>upon people, by Forcing them to
>inhale their foul smell.
Isn't it the same? You walk around naked and you are forcing others to watch something they don't want to.
Ah - but you can always close your eyes. And you can always buy an air mask. And you can always sound proof your house so that outside noise doesn't come in.
See - they are all related examples. Based on different senses - sight, smell, sound.
The point about these examples is - they are NOT infringing property rights. Yet, there are laws for them. And for a good reason.
I don't think countries can stop any person from leaving - except if that person has broken a law.
I don't think you have to take "permission" to leave a country.
Yes - you need permission to enter a country - and follow its rules. Just like there are rules to enter a gated community.
Obviously - I'm not stating that gated communities and countries are exactly similar in nature. But they have a lot in common.
>Gated Communities do NOT take
>money from your income to help pay
>for the houseing or food of others
>in that community.
But many gated communities do charge for water and utilities and security and maintenance. (Even if you go on a vacation, you still have to pay those charges.)
(Paying for other people's food and housing and education as tax is where the law has broken down - imo.)
Your questions about Nakedness, loud music and smelly air are like those asked of people who say "you can do anything if you set your mind to it". Who are then asked, "What about if what I want it so physically flap my arms and fly like a bird, I can't do that, can I?"
How about some Sense and Reason.
YOU want to walk Naked? Fine, do it. But it is pointless because no Business will allow you into it premises.
YOu want to make the air smell funny? Then see how quickly your life is mad miserable by ohters. YOU want to play music so loud it can be heard throughout the neighborhood? Quickly see how your life is made miserable.
A normal person... a rational person who can see what a good action is for their own self interest... does not do those things. NOT because there is a Law against them, but because of the repercussions it will bring upon them when they Disturb those around them.
My take is simple... don't do to others what you don't want done to you.
Thats like some one saying wear short clothes (or no clothes) and you will be raped, isn't it?
I'm not sure if that is a right excuse.
It is and it isn't. In the context I wrote it, no it's not like that at all. But in a culture which blames women for those things (Muslim cultures like those i Iran, for example) then Yes. Because those places blame women for rape and then kill the woman. So for the woman's on self interest (the preservation of her life) it's not a good idea to walk around in shorts.
I don't think countries can stop any person from leaving - except if that person has broken a law.
I don't think you have to take "permission" to leave a country.
Then maybe you have never left your country.
That's what a Passport is. It's a Permission Slip issued by your Govt granting you Permission To Leave. Wrongdoers have that permission revoked and Must Hand In Their Passport.
I suppose you can just walk across a land border in the middle of nowhere, and just leave on a boat and sail away if you live in a country with ocean boundaries. But that permission slip you do't have means no other country will let you in either (want to now argue the point of refugees and asylum seekers?).
Gates Communities: I see you are just trying to find any point to not accept the inevitable.
It is NOT about what gated communities do that may or may be similar to what a government does, in terms of Public Area maintanence or Security where a person is on vacation or not (did you some people who live in stand alone homes only hire security when they go on vacation, not despite being on vacation like you are alluding to).
The difference is one of... dare I say it again... VOLUNTARY VS COERCION.
A Government TAKE YOUR MONEY whether you like it or not. A Gated Community REQUESTS YOUR MONEY and if you don't like the request or what the money is being spent on, which you knew in advance Before the money was requested, you are free to leave and live in a standalone home or other gated community.
To add further... gated Commuities have Accountability. Governments do not.
Yes (to pre-empt what I know would come), there are SOME Community Managers that are corrupt or fleece the system. But the accountability is still there. Not so with Government.
If the Body Coportate Managers are corrupt a new BCM can be chosen in a Free Market Manner - internal and external managers. That choice is not available in the Government System.
You can accept the reality of it - or - deny it and lie to yourself and make all kinds of excuses to delude yourself into thinking otherwise. Most people choose the later because the truth is harded to accept than lies that make you feel good.
Thanks.
Re: Gated communities vs Governments. I'm not trying to find any reason that can be found.
Its just this: I think if the gated communities replace the governments entirely - then the gated communities will turn into governments. They will act like how the governments are acting today.
Because topologically, they both are similar - they have the same structure.
* The mass mind is working at both places
* Both places are supposedly democratic (100 wolves and 1 sheep)
* Both places charge a "tax" for common property and services
* There is coercion going on in both places
The level of coercion is higher in governments. But that doesn't mean there is no coercion going on in gated communities.
How long do you think will it take gated communities to issue identity cards to all its members - if all the governments disappear overnight?
The examples about nakedness, crap smell and loud noise aren't non-sensical.
They are a bit exaggurated (I don't think there is a machine that can make a whole city sound smelly). But they certainly do make sense.
1. There are many many nude communities in the world. Its many peoples prefered way of living. They've formed private communities just because its "illegal" to roam around naked in the public.
But make it legal and you'll find a few of them roaming around naked on the streets everyday.
I forget the details - but there was a store opened somewhere in Europe who announced a contest - the first one to enter naked in their stores on their opening day can buy anything upto a certain value for free.
Quite a few people turned up naked.
2. There is a hotel resort in Maharashtra, India thats been going down hill since some time. Why? Because of the nasty smell. A fishing factory (refinery?) was started next to it.
They are trying to get it shut down.
3. Government of Bombay passed a law - no loud music and events after 10 pm. This was done because "almost all" the people play extremely loud music during marriages and festivals till 3 and 4 in the night - making it hell for the neighbours.
Its not one person that plays loud music 24/7/365. Its a million people playing loud music just a couple of times every year.
>My take is simple... don't do to
>others what you don't want done to
>you.
I agree with that. And the other part:
Don't do to others what they don't want done to them.
Post a Comment