Unless you have done a crime you should be left alone...
It is perfectly legitimate for any Society to apprehend a violent criminal if it is agreed among them that to do so is beneficial... This would be an expression of negative rights because it restricts the freedom of the offender, thereby protecting the innocent.
It does not make sense for a Society to agree that positive rights are legitimate because, by definition people are being forced to act against their will... Some of them (who are innocent) must not agree.
If we are innocent until proven guilty then negative rights such as the Income Tax are illegitimate... we should not need to pay taxes to stay out of prison.
Negative rights are valid because they allow people to "go about their business" without being hindered by unwarranted violence... It also has utility (coincidental?*) in that together we are more efficient if we do not need to protect our belongings from disruption.
It is (or might be) better for everyone if the State protects property rights by implementing negative rights... It cannot be said to be better for everyone if people are made to act against their wishes... We do not know that a monarch (or similar) has a better idea of what to do than anyone else... but we do know that there is no reason why a person should not be able to protect themselves from aggression.
A State which uses negative rights is a peaceful State, one that uses positive rights is inharmonious because people are constantly being disrupted from doing what they would otherwise do.
It is not legitimate to presume that we (all) owe a debt to the State, for what is the State but an extension of ourselves?
Why do we owe the State anything, certainly if we are innocent?
*Why is it better (for those involved) if we do not enslave one-another, does Nature have a preference for (individual) freedom... and hence equality?
We are each an element of the species as a whole and so if we individually suffer, then we must do so collectively... If one individual intimidates the other to their own advantage (and the other retaliates) this is not good for the species, to a great extent. At some point we must be left alone... it cannot always be a fight to the death, it is (often) better for the individual to fight another day, rather than committing to conflict. Property rights are always a negotiation... what is best for the group, (in the context of conflict with other tribes)? And in the context of conflict among the groups within the tribe?
Saturday 25 April 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment