Incomplete summary of rhetorical positions (update)

This is an update of a prior post in which I laid out the current status of my rhetorical positions. This type of blog helps me to understand what if anything remains to be done to have a consistent political outlook.

Nihilistic positions

Each of these is similar to the position taken in the previous post...

i) Land ownership No one can own the land. This is a very simple position. However to live a functional life it may be pragmatic to arrange that land is allocated and compartmentalised so that the best use can be made of it. Whilst this appears to be very similar to property ownership of the typical type it is not quite the same. We do not own the land we lease it temporarily from the community within which we live... the group which we expect to stay off our claimed property.

ii) Taxation This position has been stable for a while. Taxation violates the non-aggression principle. That's not to say that some taxes aren't worse than others and if taxation is required then it is best to tax 'bad' things rather than 'good' things. Although taxation might seem like a good idea it is pretty clear from just a cursory examination of natural rights that it is not legitimate and history has shown us where it can lead. Just because we might like an idea (or hate its antithesis) doesn't mean that it is true.

iii) Drug prohibition It is not possible to do a crime to yourself because crimes are concerned with refraining from doing harm to others. Other people do not have a right to impose their version of a good and healthy life onto you.

Situations where the state is in the wrong and will fail

We have no obligation to protect the state from itself and we have no obligation to maintain or protect either of these two arrangements...

i) First past the post By precedent we have the first past the post voting system. Very few people honestly argue that it is a superior system... it is hard to argue against democracy whether we are defending the statist or anti-statist position. But to maintain first past the post requires that voters keep voting for the two main parties whether tactically or otherwise. But the public has no obligation to do so and can in effect 'default' on the fptp system by choosing to vote for parties which do not support fptp and instead endorse proportional representation. The voting public have no obligation to protect the fptp system.

ii) Deposit insurance The state has no right to protect the banks from failure. To do so is to place a particular kind of firm above others in terms of importance and there is never a reason to do so. If the banks get too large (and insolvent) the state will not be able to save them and to make the attempt will jeopardise the security of the state itself. Just as the individual has no obligation to save the banks they also have no obligation to save the state and if the state tries to save the banks it too will fail.