My contract (with the State) is not that I will do good, only that I will do no harm

I do not recognise any positive rights belonging to the State, only negative rights and the Social Contract should reflect this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order. (as at 16th April'09)

If we have any (implicit) contract with the State, it can only be a contract which promises that we desist from doing harm... It can be argued that by living in the jurisdiction of the State we benefit from the advantages of State protection of property rights and that as a consequence we have an obligation to the State, to repay this favour. But it should not be the innocent person who suffers when property rights are (unfairly) violated, it "should" be the criminal. Therefore, the person who takes more than belongs to them, should pay the fine (by giving up the property) and this would be so that the State (representing "the people") can defend the (negative) property rights of the innocent...

Eventually a person could be expelled from the jurisdiction of the State, or be imprisoned. The costs of enacting the law do not fall on the innocent, instead they fall on the guilty party and if they cannot pay, the State (acting to defend property rights) must be funded by charitable donations or volunteerism. The State does not have a right to make the innocent pay for its action against their will... They do not have a right to force people to support them; although they do have the right to use force (in self-defence) against people who have opposed the (reasonable) wishes of the State. If property rights have been violated, the State may act to assist the victim, but they have no right to later demand a payment from the victim (unless they entered into an explicit contract). The Police (who uphold property rights) should be funded voluntarily, they should be like a charity or an organisation of vigilantes. It is wrong not to give a choice to the "taxpayer" if they are innocent, only the guilty should be forced to pay (by losing property rights). It is legitimate (by this measure) for the State to remove property rights from citizens for no other reason than that they hold (an excess of) property, even if they have done (no other) crime. It is wrong to force people to do things...

If no one chooses to "protect" the property rights of the citizens, then so be it...

If we force payment of taxes in exchange for the promise to protect a person's property, even if the threat (of violation) is legitimate, this is no different from any other protection racket. If they claim that our safety is a consequence of their actions (and that we must then pay...) this is a fallacy because if the payment is withdrawn, what are the consequences? If the protection is then withheld (and we are free to do so) then the Government are nothing more than a private (voluntary) security firm... and this is a lie because we are not free to withhold payment. The Government are perfectly entitled to withdraw their protection from those whom prefer not to (be forced to) pay taxes.

It might be possible to establish a Social Contract with the State which recognises only negative rights, not positive rights: such a contract would be similar to a promise known as a restrictive covenant...

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/228.cfm
Term: restrictive covenant
A promise which is negative in nature. For instance, as a condition of being offered an position, an employee may be required to enter into a restrictive covenant not to work with a competitor of the employer for a specified period after the termination of the employment contract.

In this way, the citizen would be entitled to no protection from the State other than that which would be voluntarily given (they can take out private protection) but they would otherwise be free to do as they wish provided they do no harm. Their (the citizen's) restrictive covenant would be to refrain from aggression against either the State or any of its citizens... The State would similarly promise to do no harm to the citizen, unless and until the citizen performs a crime.

We have no reason to be obligated to the State for services which we have not (got) the ability to refuse... We would only have an obligation if we had previously agreed (explicitly) to perform a task in consideration of a contract. We have, none of us, agreed to such a contract... The State should seek the permission of the citizen before it acts in such a way so as to incur (create) a liability to the citizen... we should pay (Income Tax) once we have agreed to the method by which the money will be put into use. We should be able to refuse if the Government doesn't adequately explain how the money will be spent, to our satisfaction.

We should only be forced to pay if we are satisfied with their service... We keep paying but the service doesn't improve.

Thursday 16 April 2009