segunda-feira, março 24, 2014

Against the Basic Income Guarantee

Against the Basic Income Guarantee:
In the context of this argument, they are quite literally claiming that if the state violates someones rights, the state must make restitution to the victim, even if “making restitution” was predicated on the state violating someone else’s rights in order to do so. Zwolinski’s pitiful attempt to appeal to the standard libertarian idea of what constitutes justice is a complete perversion of the principle in question. If Person A violates the rights of Person B, Rothbardians argue that A owes B restitution in proportion to the offense committed. However, the means by which the restitution is paid is of the utmost importance. Person A does not then have license to steal property from Person C to pay Person B. This would simply be an additional crime committed by A. The Basic Income Guarantee would necessarily have to be paid out of funds obtained through taxation (i.e. theft) and would be an illegitimate act, piling injustice upon injustice upon injustice. No matter what violations have been perpetrated by the state in the past, there can be no justification for continuous and perpetual invasions of the rights of third parties to make restitution for those crimes. True restitution would mean an end to the crimes of the state, and the most egregious perpetrators being compelled to work off their debts as determined by a free competing court system.

Sem comentários:

Enviar um comentário