Most Libertarians realise that the State generally uses force in an aggressive way to achieve its aims, it interferes in our lives and compels us to do things. It does not need to be this way, it is perfectly possible to have a State which protects property rights and security and yet does not act in a threatening manner. To understand how this is possible and to see the arguments behind this claim we need to consider the differing aspects of both negative and positive rights.
If I am prevented from doing something harmful, this is an expression of negative rights on the part of those affected because they are seeking to prevent me from engaging in an action. If I am compelled to do something, such as pay income tax, this is an expression of the positive rights of the State to make me do something which I would not otherwise do.
Positive rights are always aggressive in nature because the person subject to the imposition has done nothing wrong, they have not previously used force in a harmful way. They are being compelled to do something against their wishes for some reason other than to protect the security of others.
Negative rights are not strictly aggressive since the party concerned may be acting in self-defence. If a person transgresses on your property and you use force to eject them, this is not an aggressive act because it is retaliatory.
If a State uses only negative rights and uses them only against people who have done a crime, then the State is not being aggressive and it is able to protect property rights and the safety of individuals.
26 April 2009
2 comments:
It would be helpful to have lists of more and less aggressive states. Please provide.
Collecting taxes to support abandoned or orphaned babies is an example of an imposition on somebody who has done no wrong, in order to protect the security of others.
"It would be helpful to have lists of more and less aggressive states. Please provide."
I would generally think of America in the 1980s as being the closest in recent history, to a less aggressive State. Given that a non-aggressive State requires zero income tax this shows how far we have ever come in recent times to achieving a non-aggressive State... The furthest from a non-aggressive State would perhaps be 1930s Russia or Cambodia under Pol Pot.
"Collecting taxes to support abandoned or orphaned babies is an example of an imposition on somebody who has done no wrong, in order to protect the security of others."
An abandoned child has two needs: i) It needs to be fed and provided for ii) It needs to be protected from attack by a harmful person. For the State to protect the child from attack is an expression of negative rights and perfectly legitimate. There will always be plenty of reliable adults who are willing to provide for the child without the interference of the State...
There is no way positive rights can be exploited by the State to improve the situation of the child because it takes less effort to look after the child yourself than to force someone else to do it.
Post a Comment