Re: a quick thought
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its not very compelling only because many ACists use inflammatory language. But when you get right down to it democracy is a majority rule. You arent allowed to disagree or you will be thrown in jail. What arguement can possibly justify the violent enforcement of positive rights? I have yet to hear one.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the fact that government enforces positive rights violently initially persuades people. After all, doesn't Robin Hood use some violence to steal from the rich to give to the poor, presumably because the obligation the rich have to take care of the poor isn't being fulfilled? More compelling to me is the arbitrariness of most positive rights - how much in health care costs should that dying grandmother receive? $100,000? $1,000,000? Ideally what one realizes is that the grandmother's preference is paramount, since government policies can't realize those preferences, not even before discounting wastes, inefficiencies, etc. To understand that enforcing positive rights forces what is "fair" to become arbitrary, murky, undefinable, and often prone to abuse is the first step. It doesn't require ad-hoc (and bitingly personal) criticisms of any one particular ideology , just a class of them. Realizing then that everyone is free to pursue their goals within their moral structure constrained by negative rights leads one to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.
|