fundamental political principles (and fulfilling a rant request)

[cellio]

A few weeks ago sekhmets_song posted a poll asking "What do you see as the most fundamental political issue?", with options like "education", "religion", "gender identity", and others. profane_stencil posted the same poll. In both cases the most popular answer was "class".

I, on the other hand, feel that the most significant political issue, the foundation on which many others are built, is property -- not who has it (this isn't "class" in disguise) but rather what we believe about property rights. At least for domestic policy; this doesn't work as well for international issues. I've been meaning to write more about this since then, but I've been busy. But hey, I'll take a stab at it now.

I think one's view of property informs many other beliefs -- everything from taxes to abortion to the judicial system. A generic western capitalist probably wants to keep taxes low (keep more of my money), thinks medical decisions belong to the individual (my body belongs to me), favors some level of civil torts (compensate me for damages done to my property), and so on. A lot of the thinking can reduce to "it's my property and I get to decide how to use it".

This view is probably pretty foreign to the generic socialist. (Disclaimer: I must rely more on observation than direct experience in this analysis.) Property really doesn't belong to you, so you don't get to control it -- it's perfectly ok to take from you to help someone else, because helping everyone is the goal and it's all public resources anyway. If socialists thought about their high taxes in terms of "the money they're taking from me", they might not support those high taxes. But since property belongs to everyone, it's not really "my" money, at least not mostly. Sure, we can all benefit individually from our labor, but only with what's left over after meeting everyone else's needs.

(Yes, of course this is an over-simplification. But if you think I've completely missed the mark please speak up.)

In trying to put this in words I realized that the foundation does seem stronger for the first position than for the second. This might just be that it's easier to support positives than negatives. It's not that the socialist is explicit about his view of property rights, but I still think the view comes through by implication.

Many issues depend on this. Education? One view is that you should have access to whatever you can afford (including by being good enough to win sponsorship); the opposing view is that education should be provided to all for no cost for the public good. Health care? Really, it's the same argument. Labor policies? One view is that I should be able to sell my services for whatever price I can get (even a very low one, if that's all I can get); the opposing view is that people have an inherent right to a certain level of financial support and that it's ok to compel employers and forbid low-bidding workers.

While some in the US today seem to think that religion is the fundamental issue (at least in its fundamentalist-Christian flavor), I think that the issues actually being argued under that guise often boil down to property. The right-to-die issue , for example, isn't about religious values at its core; it's about control over the individual. If I believe that I own myself, it would be unthinkable for me to intervene in your decisions even if it's a decision I myself would never make; if I think that the community owns me, then of course it has the right to intervene.

It's not evil to believe in property rights, nor is it inconsistent with supporting those around you. I, personally, believe very strongly in the legal right to the fruits of my labors, the obligation to cover my own expenses (and not take from others), the expectation that I use some of my resources to provide for myself in the future, and the moral obligation to support those who cannot do so. That moral obligation comes from a combination of religion, upbringing, and enlightened self-interest, but the key is that I give, not that someone else takes.

So to me this means taxes for necessary infrastructure and private charity for support, not taxes to be redistributed (at high overhead) by a government that tries to serve everyone from a distance. And yes, I realize that this approach breaks down in large groups; smaller communities take care of themselves better than large nations do. I don't know what is practical to implement in the US today, but a lot of what we're doing now runs counter to property rights, so I find myself getting bugged by it from time to time. For example, I've known for years that I am part of the generation that's going to pay for retirement twice -- once for those retiring before me and once for myself because those who come after me won't be able to support my peer group. From a property-rights view this is fundamentally unfair, even if -- absent the taking of that money from my paycheck -- I would turn around and spend that amount to support others anyway.

Comments

[siderea]

If socialists thought about their high taxes in terms of "the money they're taking from me", they might not support those high taxes.

I think you are mistaken in thinking that they don't already think of it as "the money they're talking from me." I, leaning far to the left (economically) of you, would say that's the practical difference between communism and socialism. In socialism, you pay taxes (and know how much was "yours"). "In communist Russia" (all together now!) "taxes pay you."

(I can't believe I made that joke. :)

I'm unconvinced by your argument. While I can see how you see things in terms of property rights (something I've heard much of from Libertarians; that's canon, isn't it?) I don't really think that's the fundamental issue there. I think what Libertarians are really pointing at, when they call out property rights, is actually the role of the government in society.

Because there's a real simple answer to the question "By what right does the government take my money?": "It's your government, you pay for it."

The rebuttal "But I didn't vote for all these services and whatnot!" only invites the answer "Welcome to Democracy." The People did, so The People have to pay for it.

As unpleasant as that may be for those of The People who disagree, that makes ethical sense, if one grants the legitimacy of Majority Rule.

This is going to sound horrendously bitter (not to mention anti-democratic), and I don't mean it that way at all, I just mean this as a value-neutral observation of How The World Works, but: As others before us have observed, in a democracy there is a tendency for the majority to vote themselves largesse.

As someone (Churchill?) once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others." *sigh*

I would say that the issue of What Is Government's Proper Role In Society, itself rests on something much more fundamental, and that is the issue of What Should The Relationship Of Man To Society Be?

Some people -- you are not among them :) -- think that since society thrives or flounders on the basis of the wellness of its constituent members, society has an interest in and should take an active role in the affairs of its members. This is a man-society symbiosis.

Other people -- perhaps you -- think that society is a fiction, that there really is not greater whole, just large numbers of individuals, and that all individuals need is a mediating body to handle conflicts. As such any action on the part of "society" is considered illegitimate, society is a result of interpersonal interactions, and should never be reified. This is society as product of man.

[sekhmets-song.livejournal.com]

"By what right does the government take my money?": "It's your government, you pay for it."
I think most people tend to forget this fact. Sadly.

[cellio]

(I can't believe I made that joke. :)

:-)

I think what Libertarians are really pointing at, when they call out property rights, is actually the role of the government in society.

Certainly Libertarians focus a great deal on the proper role of government in society. That in itself didn't seem to be fundamental (i.e. it feels like a deeper principle guides that), but I think madfilkentist is spot-on when he talks about rights of independance versus rights of entitlement.

As unpleasant as that may be for those of The People who disagree, that makes ethical sense, if one grants the legitimacy of Majority Rule.

Yes. We like to talk about how minorities still have rights here (that's why we're set up as a republic, not a democracy, even if the lines are quite blurry in the US today), but it's never clear just how much the minority is protected against an unjust majority.

As others before us have observed, in a democracy there is a tendency for the majority to vote themselves largesse.

More broadly, there is a tendency for the powerful to grant themselves largesse. Being a majority leads to power, but so do corruption, charisma, and probably other things.

Other people -- perhaps you -- think that society is a fiction, that there really is not greater whole, just large numbers of individuals, and that all individuals need is a mediating body to handle conflicts. As such any action on the part of "society" is considered illegitimate, society is a result of interpersonal interactions, and should never be reified. This is society as product of man.

While I'm not quite that extreme, that's pretty close. I think the proper role of government is to mediate conflict and administer that subset of infrastructure that it really, really makes sense to administer centrally (like the army). It's philosophically easier to not open that latter can of worms, but I'm not an anarchist -- just an extreme minimalist when it comes to government. However, I'm also someone who doesn't especially trust people in power to actually look out for the rest of us, so I want the freedom to look out for those I care about directly.

[jducoeur]

I'm economically in between the two of you: economics is a significant focus for me, but I find both the left and the right pretty unrealistic. I tend to be ruthlessly pragmatic economically, and actually don't have a big problem with the *structure* of American economics (which is basically a messy but practical compromise), so much as with its numerous screwed-up details. (Of which, note, I consider the tax rate to be among the least important.)

With that in mind: I'm going to pretty much agree with siderea on this one. If we're talking about the most fundamental issue that defines a political landscape, it's the relationship of Man to Society. I'll amend it slightly, though, and also include the relationship of Society to its Leadership -- that's a subset of the previous issue, but an especially important and universal one, and must be included, if only to recognize that it is sometimes over-emphasized. Take those two elements together, and you can pretty well categorize every major political system and philosophy.

Property is an issue, certainly, but so is labor. The degree and form of the individuals' ability to influence the course of society is quite important. The selection of rights is an issue, but there is a more fundamental meta-issue of whether the individuals *have* rights in the first place. (Many political systems effectively say that they do not -- for instance, in many forms of totalitarianism, the individual at best has privileges.)

At its core, the underlying issue is how the individual and the mass relate to each other. If you have a coherent answer to that, the rest tends to derive from it. But it's very difficult to compare different answers to this fundamental question, because they are generally proceeding from such unrelated assumptions and priorities. The Fascist, Capitalist, Communist and Monarchist not only disagree about the right answers to many quesions, they don't necessarily agree on which quesions are worth asking...