Property Rights and Discrimination: Statist Schemes Can't Create Equality

Property Rights and Discrimination:
Statist Schemes Can't Create Equality
by Mark Anderson, Columnist

March 28, 2003

"Dollars and Sense"

It is breathtaking to see the hierophants of "equality" supporting the most discriminatory policies, while simultaneously preaching about the vice of racism. Granted, racism is incredibly unenlightened - indeed, a transgression against our Heavenly Creator, i.e., a sin. Holding the "anti-racist" card, these demagogues in the one warfare-welfare party have managed to parlay a fortune from a morally bankrupt idea. If one sees racism as the only form of discrimination, perhaps their arguments have some merit. But that, however, is not the case.

Everybody discriminates in everything they do. Employers refuse to hire individuals who have not passed the tests of the hierophants in secondary indoctrination courses. Stores prohibit the entry of people with "no shoes" and "no shirt" - discriminating against barefoot and topless people. Government schools super impose their secular, humanistic religion on our students, in a blatant act of discrimination against Christians. How, then, do we achieve equality and fairness for all? The answer is simple: restore property rights.

Having a solid understanding of property rights is essential in articulating ideas on every political issue. Every political idea either infringes upon our property rights, or restores them. Property rights encompass every other right. Each man and woman is the sovereign owner of their body and their property. Nobody else owns you, or your property. With property rights, I should be able to do whatever I wish with my property and my body - with no limitations.

Most people would try to add in a qualifier to the above statement, by suggesting that this right has a limit - i.e., we shouldn't be able to trespass against, or harm, another. The above statement needs no qualifier. If you own your body and your property without limitations, then this inherently excludes the right of trespass.
Included with property rights, is the right to discriminate with our property how we see fit. As unenlightened as some forms of discrimination are, it is the right of a homosexual to deny employment to a Christian, or a black to deny employment to a white, or even a white to deny employment to a black. In lawing "equality" effectively outlaws property rights. If the government can compel a man to purchase a certain kind of labor, then shall the government be able to compel us to shop at Wal-Mart as well?

How should we have handled the issue of segregation in government facilities in a moral fashion? By abolishing the government program entirely. No matter what lengths we go to, there will be discrimination. Our objective should be to ensure that this discrimination is not done by one person with another person's property. As I mentioned earlier, government schools teach curriculum that many Christians, who are compelled to furnish contributions (property) for the program, find offensive. If we Christianized government schools, then the atheists would be offended. The only way to ensure neutrality is to restore property rights, i.e., shut down government.

If there are no government schools, then it is inherently impossible to have segregated government schools. The only right government grants is the right of trespass. We can understand this by integrating taxation theory with property rights theory. Take, for example, eminent domain and land acquisition. Many public policy practitioners justify the acquisition of land by emphasizing the fact that the property owner was justly compensated. The problem is, however, ignoring the other half to the transaction, i.e., the taxation.

Pursuant to the last clause of the 5th amendment in the U.S. Constitution, private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Anterior to the acquisition of land, the 5th amendment also states that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.

Very few scholars have integrated this declatory clause in the U.S. Constitution with a theory on taxation. Consequently, a huge backdoor is left open for exponentially accelerating the size of government - the role of government now becomes infinite.

Private property shall not be used for public use without just compensation. Translated: Private property, i.e., money, shall not be used for public use, i.e., by the government, without just compensation, i.e., unless the taxpayers are justly compensated. Only the people know for sure what is just compensation since people are diverse, rendering their values subjective.

One, dollars are physical property themselves, and two, it is through the acquisition of dollars that people achieve a greater command over goods and property. If taxation isn't confiscating property, then is robbing a bank not theft?

The entire 5th amendment is nullified without integrating a theory on taxation with property rights. How does the government acquire the resources for land acquisition in the first place? Through taxation - including tax money taken from the original property owner. Strictly speaking, the government does not compensate anybody. So, if the 5th amendment is not integrated with a theory on taxation, all the government needs to do is confiscate more in taxes.

We now arrive at a new question: how are the taxpayers being justly compensated? Once we view the 5th amendment through this lens, we are now equipped to understand that compulsory taxation is, inherently, a violation of our basic human rights. Government does not sustain itself by justly compensating people, i.e., satisfying demands, i.e., earning its income. Government sustains itself with compulsory taxation, i.e., coercion - nothing different than what a thief does. In fact, if government did justly compensate taxpayers, giving back exactly in compensation what was offered for it in taxes paid, then the entire process of taxation becomes nugatory and absurd. Nobody is really a taxpayer, which means the government doesn't exist.

Indeed, the bigger government becomes, the fewer taxpayers there are. Everybody falls into one of two categories: net taxpayer or net tax consumer. If everybody is a net taxpayer, then nobody is a net tax consumer. If nobody is a net tax consumer, then the government is not subsidizing anything. If the government isn't subsidizing anything, then it must not exist. There is no such thing as a taxpaying government employee. So, forget about trying to come up with some sort of "fair" tax.

You say, "But, Mark, isn't law enforcement, executed by local government, Constitutionally permissible, since it is designed to protect property rights?" The question presupposes the answer - i.e., that the government program protects property. But that presupposition is false. Subsidizing law enforcement with compulsory taxation steals property. For this, I will use an example similar to the one Murray Rothbard used in his essay, War, Peace, and the State.

Suppose that the Johnson clan burglarizes the Thompson clan's home. The Thompson clan certainly should have the right to defend their property and, if need be, exact justice on those responsible. We would even have the right to enthusiastically cheer the Thompson clan on in their pursuit of justice, and, if desired, donate to their campaign. But should the Thompson clan have the right to steal other people's property in order to pursue justice? If they do this, then they become criminals to the same extent the Johnson clan did. That is the precise net result with law enforcement that is subsidized with compulsory taxation - i.e., welfare for "security."

This leaves, in my estimation, a role for government of, well, nothing. We are all entitled to un curtailed property rights, which are the foundation of all other rights, as individuals. Whites and blacks are all human beings, entitled to the same rights as individuals. No matter what the motive is - racism or the inverted "benevolence" of the statists - confiscation of these rights is morally reprehensible. If you really care about black people, then you should find it repulsive that government is, by definition, theft based on territory, granting the right of some to trespass against, and steal from, another - essentially leaving everybody with no rights. Collectivism is sold to people as a system where "everybody" owns the property. The "people" own the schools. But if everybody can claim the property, then nobody really owns it at all.

The egalitarians would have us believe that equality implies sameness. Equality does not imply sameness, but rather that we all have the same freedom to control our lives. People are diverse and need this freedom to fulfill their ambitions and desires. The socialists are the biggest thieves, who curtail freedom for whites and blacks both. If we are going to hang Lott - who is a gun grabbing socialist himself - in effigy, then let us do it to everybody in Washington, except for Congressman Ron Paul. ***

Click Here for Mark's Archives

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files