That said, I'm never quite sure what the sensible response to it is on a small scale. I mean, yes, it's absurd to subsidize tobacco farmers and tax cigarettes; if you want to reduce tobacco consumption, don't subsidize tobacco farmers. Absolutely. But if the question on the table is "tax cigarettes or don't," and you want to reduce tobacco consumption... (shrug). You know how it is.
Also, a tangent... The thing that makes (our) government evil is that it enables a majority to impose their will on a minority. If I want to build a shed on my land that I own, my neighbors can tell me 'no' without buying my land or otherwise honestly acquiring property rights.Huh
( ... )
I mean, I agree with your description of government, but describing it as evil in consequence of that strikes me as being an awful lot like saying that government is good because it permits people to breathe.
Maybe I'm just being dim, but it doesn't seem at all like that to me. Permitting people to breathe is I suppose technically a function performed by every entity in the world, from my town government to theater companies to the Federated Apostolic Church of Southeast Nauru, but it really doesn't exemplify the typical activity of government
( ... )
I agree with you that giving governments enough power to do the things we benefit from governments doing also involves giving them enough power -- or at least, allowing the possibility that they will take enough power without being stopped -- to do things we don't benefit from, or do things that actively harm us.
Not least of which because it's not always clear which is which, and because there's lots of different "us"es.
The point, I think, is that rights - even those dastardly property rights - precede government.
If I make a turkey sandwich, I have the right to eat it.
A Somalian milita that comes by and steals my turkey sandwich is wrong.
A government agent who comes by and confiscates my turkey sandwich on the grounds that I'm using unpasturized mayonaize is also violating my rights, but less egregiously, and it provides some protection against the prior scenario.
Probably my difficulty here is I don't have a clear sense of what rights actually are, so instead I end up unpacking "property rights" as meaning something like my actual freedom to do what I want with my property.
And, well, my sense is that the government agent (and the agency he represents) in your second scenario is responsible for me having more actual freedom than I would have without him.
So it feels odd to talk about him as responsible for a net loss of property rights.
But, yeah, if I discard that unpacking and instead accept that property rights just exist in a vacuum, then yes, it makes sense to talk about him that way.
We can go ahead and discard any talk of "rights" if you like. I'm obviously doing a poor job of explaining myself, because I'm not just acknowledging but assuming that the existence of government is responsible for a net gain of your freedom to eat delicious sandwiches.
But you do seem to be talking about something which the government is responsible for me having less of, which is what makes government an evil (albeit a necessary one). Aren't you?
If not -- if the government isn't actually responsible for me having less of anything valuable -- then I'm back to my original question: what is evil about it?
If so... well, we can discard any talk of rights, but in that case I just don't have a label for whatever-it-is. Either way, there is something the government is responsible for me having less of, which is what makes government an evil (albeit a necessary one), and which is not my freedom to eat delicious sandwiches, and which "property rights" often refers to.
As I say, I don't have a clear grasp of what that is, although I share the intuitive sense that there's something.
That said, I'm never quite sure what the sensible response to it is on a small scale. I mean, yes, it's absurd to subsidize tobacco farmers and tax cigarettes; if you want to reduce tobacco consumption, don't subsidize tobacco farmers. Absolutely. But if the question on the table is "tax cigarettes or don't," and you want to reduce tobacco consumption... (shrug). You know how it is.
Also, a tangent... The thing that makes (our) government evil is that it enables a majority to impose their will on a minority. If I want to build a shed on my land that I own, my neighbors can tell me 'no' without buying my land or otherwise honestly acquiring property rights.Huh ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I mean, I agree with your description of government, but describing it as evil in consequence of that strikes me as being an awful lot like saying that government is good because it permits people to breathe.
Reply
Reply
Not least of which because it's not always clear which is which, and because there's lots of different "us"es.
Reply
Reply
If I make a turkey sandwich, I have the right to eat it.
A Somalian milita that comes by and steals my turkey sandwich is wrong.
A government agent who comes by and confiscates my turkey sandwich on the grounds that I'm using unpasturized mayonaize is also violating my rights, but less egregiously, and it provides some protection against the prior scenario.
Reply
And, well, my sense is that the government agent (and the agency he represents) in your second scenario is responsible for me having more actual freedom than I would have without him.
So it feels odd to talk about him as responsible for a net loss of property rights.
But, yeah, if I discard that unpacking and instead accept that property rights just exist in a vacuum, then yes, it makes sense to talk about him that way.
Reply
Reply
But you do seem to be talking about something which the government is responsible for me having less of, which is what makes government an evil (albeit a necessary one). Aren't you?
If not -- if the government isn't actually responsible for me having less of anything valuable -- then I'm back to my original question: what is evil about it?
If so... well, we can discard any talk of rights, but in that case I just don't have a label for whatever-it-is. Either way, there is something the government is responsible for me having less of, which is what makes government an evil (albeit a necessary one), and which is not my freedom to eat delicious sandwiches, and which "property rights" often refers to.
As I say, I don't have a clear grasp of what that is, although I share the intuitive sense that there's something.
If
Reply
Leave a comment