Property is not arbitrary

I was recently witness to some folks claiming that the concept of property ownership was "artificial" and "arbitrary". I thought I'd write a rebuttal of sorts.

Property comes from the axiomatic principle of self ownership. We own ourselves and as such are responsible for our actions and the consequences of our actions.

Without these two principles, why would we bother punishing people for stealing or murdering others?

It is easy to understand this when discussing punishment. We ostracize those who lie or are untrustworthy and we jail those who steal, rape or murder. Few people struggle to understand this and I've not met someone who argues against this.

What is harder for people to recognize is the flip side of this principle. If we let the full consequences of negative acts accrue to the one responsible, why would we not let the full consequences of all acts accrue to the one responsible?

We recognize that by punishing people for doing "bad things", it dis-incentivizes them from repeating their "bad" acts. Furthermore, we recognize that if we only let part of the punishment accrue to the perpetrator, the disincentive becomes correspondingly weaker.

So why not let the full benefits of all behaviour accrue to the individuals responsible? Surely positive behaviour is not only more prevalent, but more important to encourage, right?

Imagine if we took 30% of the punishment for murder from the murderer and "gave" it to someone who had nothing to do with the murder, it seems hard to argue that this would have a beneficial effect in society. In fact, I would imagine most people would find this idea abhorrent, and rightfully so. Can you imagine getting an invitation to spend a week in jail to serve your "fair share" of punishment in society?

Yet that is exactly what taxation is in reverse. It is taking part of the benefits (consequences) of people participating in voluntary transactions in the world, and handing them out to people who had nothing to do with it. Ostensibly under the guise of "generosity" or "charity".

Taxation is the forcible removal of the earned consequences of people's voluntary and chosen actions. Why tax one set of consequences (voluntary trade), but not another set of consequences (theft, rape, murder)? Especially when one considers the fact that taxing something means less of it.

There is another way! Google voluntarism and learn how a society might function in the absence of a state. It isn't utopian, but it does require a fair degree of humility and enthusiasm, so beware if you're interested!