freedom vs coercion - check up on my argument please

[doodydota]

Please check up on my argument. My native language is not english and neither am I trained in the subject other than being a fdr listener for a year. 

 

Everybody who is free to chose how to spend their own money makes by definition a "correct" choice. It doesn't matter if the person is acting rationally, emotionally, selfisyly, altruisticly or whatever. He/she acts to satisfy their needs, even if to buy drugs or give to charity.  

If the first sentence is true, that implies government should not tax to provide services, but instead let the people chose which services they want to buy by their own initiative. In this way we arrive at a libertarian view of economics, don't we?

If the first sentence is false, however, and people should not be free to spend their own money as they please, that raises an infinite number of questions: How do you determine what the best use for other people's money is? Who is it to make the decision? What kind of science do we have to back up such deciscions, or do we allow for arbitrary opinons of a select view? What kind of responsibility and accountability should or could be put on such a person in case they are corrupt or err? Etc...  etc... 

 

If there is any mistake, logical problem or phrase that could be put in a better way then I'd be greatful for pointing this out.

 

Thanks,

Mathias 

[powder]

what if a person chooses to use their money to hire someone to murder someone else?  Is that a 'correct' choice?

[dsayers]

@doody: A simpler way to put it is that deciding how other people should spend their money cannot be universalized.

 

If I want somebody to spend their money in a certain way, I can make the case to them and try to encourage them to do so voluntarily. If I choose to instead force them to, I am accepting my own property rights while rejecting the property rights of others.

[Daniel Unplugged]

'.... even if to buy drugs.....,

Change to '.....whether he buys drugs or gives....'

 

I suggest changing the first sentence to:

'A person, if free to spend his money as he sees fit, by definition, spends it correctly, as he is the only one who may determine what correctly spending it is.'

 

You may also wish to logically prove that the first sentence is true (I consider that you have not done so). A proof looks something like this.

 

1. Ownership is the exclusive right to exercise control over something

2. He owns his money, therefore he, and only he, has the right to control it's use.

3. Therefore, whatever he chooses to use his money for automatically becomes it's correct use.

 

One more point I want to make: If person b chooses how person a's money gets spent, then the money is not actually person a's. Person b is the true owner of the money, since he controls it's use. The government allows you to keep a certain percentage, whatever percentage they wish, of the money that you earn. They exercise control over ALL of the money that you earn. Therefore, all of the money you earn is their money. Therefore you are a slave. Be thankful that your masters let you keep enough of your earnings that you don't starve /sarc.

[RuralRon]

All replies are excellent considerations, especially powder's. Shouldn't something about the NAP be included in the definition?