Libertarianism

[Renegade]

If the farmer is intelligent enough to understand the repercussions of his selfishness, would it not make sense to say that he should expect mob action? The Libertarian would still identify him as a victim, albeit a stupid selfish man.

If society has agreed that the farmer has the absolute right to obstruct the construction of the highway then society will also have the duty to protect that farmer from mob action, no matter how stupid or selfish that farmers actions are.

If the farmer is truly not intelligent enough to understand the repercussions, would you think it "right" or "fair" for "society" to steal his land without warning?

Regardless of if the farmer understood the reercussions or not I would not consider it "stealing" if "society" paid at least a fair price for the land.

[Charles Anthony]

"I don't know if this post will make any sense.

There's an empty room with a large pie. Five people walk into the room and make different claims on the pie and about how to divide it up."

It does make sense. It simplifies the entire matter very well.

I do not think Libertarianism adequately answers how to divide newly discovered property (pie in empty room or farm land or whatever).

However, I believe that there is a difference with the farmer and the highway: the farmer is starting off as having a piece of the pie already.

With the scenario of the empty room, the mob taking the farmer's land would be equivalent to four people ganging up on one so that they each can get a quarter not a fifth.

The principles of Libertarianism would identify these as transgressions and just simply wrong. The principles of Libertarianism can not say what will actually happen.

"where possible, the pieces of the pie will wind up going to the person who will best use them. Now, this criteria doesn't decide always how to accord rights in the first place (or even to transfer rights between people) but the criteria sometimes helps."

The problem is that the criteria of "who will best" is subjective and thus pliable. The Libertarian stance seems to make things objective.

"then society will also have the duty to protect that farmer from mob action"

Libertarianism actually does not answer to that or insist upon it.

Libertarians often believe that people will likely develop checks and balances or a form of justice system because they think reasonable people in that situation will develop it naturally. However, the principles of right and wrong in Libertarianism do not require "society" or anybody the duty to do anything -- other than respect eachothers rights to freedom, life and property. If a "society" has a history of slavery or pillaging or anything objectively wrong, Libertarianism does not adequately answer to how to make it right or how to compensate people for transgressions.

"Regardless of if the farmer understood the reercussions or not I would not consider it "stealing" if "society" paid at least a fair price for the land."

The Libertarian would call it theft if the farmer did not consent to the terms of trade.

[August1991]

"where possible, the pieces of the pie will wind up going to the person who will best use them. Now, this criteria doesn't decide always how to accord rights in the first place (or even to transfer rights between people) but the criteria sometimes helps."

The problem is that the criteria of "who will best" is subjective and thus pliable. The Libertarian stance seems to make things objective.

Subjective? I suppose so but if people can voluntarily trade, then the pie pieces will wind up going to the person who values pie the most (or uses the pie pieces best).

Libertarianism appeals to people's sense of fairness: "What's mine is mine and no one should have the right to take it away from me by force." The problem with this approach is "what's yours?"

I'm arguing that you'll never get a single satisfactory answer to that question. So instead, I'm suggesting an entirely different way of viewing the problem. Rather than appeal to people's sense of fairness, how about appealing to their sense of not wasting something?

This criteria doesn't always work but when it does, it has the advantage that we can all agree. And if you think about it, the future is a very, very rich country but the only way we'll ever get there is if we don't waste what we have today.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

Would you agree then TFB, that in societies in which women are not granted the same rights as men, that the women don't in fact have those rights?

Yes, that is exactly how 'rights' work.

[theloniusfleabag]

August1991,

"I don't know if this post will make any sense.

There's an empty room with a large pie. Five people walk into the room and make different claims on the pie and about how to divide it up."

It does make sense. It simplifies the entire matter very well.

I do not think Libertarianism adequately answers how to divide newly discovered property (pie in empty room or farm land or whatever).

I agree with Charles Anthony, it isn't a bad analogy, but does fail to take into account that the pie will eventually be gone. Then everyone must place a value on a turd. (They say that if shit were to become valuable, the poor would be born without arseholes)

Another way of looking at 'property ownership' is that of the 'Originals' (or Indians). You can't own land, it is just there. You can't pick it up and take it with you. That is why they thought that they were taking advantage of the white man, by selling something he could not pack up and take away. How wrong they were! The white man taught them a new definition of 'ownership': control by force. The real and only way anything can be 'owned', and the only way for a 'right' to exist.

[August1991]

I agree with Charles Anthony, it isn't a bad analogy, but does fail to take into account that the pie will eventually be gone. Then everyone must place a value on a turd. (They say that if shit were to become valuable, the poor would be born without arseholes)

Life is not a fixed sum game like dividing up a pie, but I used the pie example because the thread was way out there.

Your idea of turds makes the example more "realistic". If we spend our time arguing about who owns the pie, then there won't be any turds and that would be wasteful (or at least, it would be wasted potential). (Pun unintended.)

[Renegade]

Dear Renegade,

Would you agree then TFB, that in societies in which women are not granted the same rights as men, that the women don't in fact have those rights?

Yes, that is exactly how 'rights' work.

TFB, I think most people and Amnesty International will disagree with you. Why do you think AI, and many civilized countries object when people are tortured or enslaved? If their society never gave them the right to be free or to have security of person, then according to you, they have no such right. So what justification does AI or western countries have, to claim that rights are being violated since, by your philosophy, those rights didn't exist.

[August1991]

This thread is not theoretical but rather very practical.

On a separate thread, there is a debate about cigarette bans. At issue is a right, and in effect ownership. Who owns the environment? Is it owned by smokers or non-smokers? Do smokers have the right to go anywhere and smoke (imposing a cost on non-smokers)? Or do non-smokers have the right to go anywhere and have a smoke-free environment (imposing a cost on smokers)?

There is no single, justifiable answer to those questions. On fairness grounds, you can argue either way.

I am suggesting that we should give the environment (grant rights) to whichever group (smoker or non-smoker) can best use it. This would happen if bars and restaurants were free to decide whether to be smoking or non-smoking. They would choose according to whichever policy is most profitable, and we would likely have a mix of different bars and restos.

In this case, the Libertarian approach leads to the same answer I would give.

The current policy of anti-smoking legislation is certainly contrary to Libertarianism and it also violates my criteria of not wasting a resource.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

TFB, I think most people and Amnesty International will disagree with you.

Then they would be wrong, for they haven't thought the issue through.

So what justification does AI or western countries have, to claim that rights are being violated since, by your philosophy, those rights didn't exist.

They believe that the rights that they believe in are 'universal', or at least, they wish them to be. (Just to note, I wish most of them were too) So, they themselves have 'bestowed' them universally, thinking that this will make a difference.

What influence does the bestowing of a right have to the victim, or to the hangman, when the 'right to life' only exists on a piece of paper, in a drawer, in the head office of AI, thousands of miles away?

An 'unenforcable right' is merely a wish.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, TFB, I disagree with both of you on this. Rights are not given to us by society but are inherent to our existance. Society merely acknowledges that those rights exist.

All of the things that we call 'rights' are derived from the principal that 'you should not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you'. Slavery is illegal because people don't want to be made slaves. Women are considered equal to men because 50%+ of the population are women who would not support a system that treats them unfairly.

Property rights fall into a different category. For starters not everyone owns property nor do they expect to own property. Second, the people who do own property learn pretty quickly that the value of their property can be affected by what their neighbors do. This means people have an incentive to accept restrictions on what they can do with their property in return for the assurance that the same restrictions will apply to their neighbors. This kind of calculation means that the idea of absolute property rights will only be popular with a small minority of people.

[August1991]

All of the things that we call 'rights' are derived from the principal that 'you should not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you'.

That rule sounds nice because it seems "fair" but it is impractical and frequently violated. In any case, how do you define "fair"?

Slavery is illegal because people don't want to be made slaves.

if it were only so simple...

I would argue that slavery is a waste of potential. Slaves don't work as hard as freemen. Slavery is unethical not because it is unfair or because people don't want to be slaves. Slavery is unethical because it is wasteful. A person is likely to be more productive if that person owns one's labour and can trade it freely for what one wants. IOW, one's labour is likely to go to the highest value usage if one owns oneself.

This is exactly what I meant in trying to judge how to cut the pie, or decide rights.

Property rights fall into a different category. For starters not everyone owns property nor do they expect to own property.

We are born with our particular talents and abilities. The first property right is the right to ourselves. On efficiency grounds (not equity grounds), it makes sense that we are not slaves.

[Charles Anthony]

"All of the things that we call 'rights' are derived from the principal that 'you should not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you'."

Not really, from the Libertarian perspective, that is.

This is REALLY splitting hairs now, but the Libertarian would say that what you should or should not do has no bearing on what you want people to do to yourself. Thus, the element of subjectivity is eliminated.

"Property rights fall into a different category. For starters not everyone owns property nor do they expect to own property."

This is a MAJOR inadequacy within the Libertarian perspective.

"I would argue that slavery is a waste of potential. Slaves don't work as hard as freemen."

Absolutely correct, but if freemen demanded a higher wage and the difference in productivity can be accommodated with more slaves, that point is moot.

"Slavery is unethical because it is wasteful."

Surely you jest? Such a form of ethics terrifies me.

"The first property right is the right to ourselves. On efficiency grounds (not equity grounds), it makes sense that we are not slaves."

If it turns out that the evil dictators of China found a mechanism by which slavery can be MORE efficient, would that make slavery ethical?

Personally, I think that the fairest way to deal with the distribution of land is in the manner (as mentioned previously) in which the Natives did so historically. It only makes sense that because:

- no one person made the land

- no one person can really claim ownership on a current plot of land or a future newly discovered land

- thus, we must share and conserve for future generations

[Riverwind]

"All of the things that we call 'rights' are derived from the principal that 'you should not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you'."Not really, from the Libertarian perspective, that is.

This is not a question of perspective, it is a question of fact. We have things we call rights in society today. These rights evolved because the majority of people feel that these rights protect their self-interest. There will never be any absolute property rights unless it can be shown that it is in the self-interest of the majority of people to support such rights. I believe that it is impossible to make the case that absolute property rights will benefit the majority of people.

[Renegade]

Riverwind, TFB, I disagree with both of you on this. Rights are not given to us by society but are inherent to our existance. Society merely acknowledges that those rights exist.

All of the things that we call 'rights' are derived from the principal that 'you should not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you'. Slavery is illegal because people don't want to be made slaves. Women are considered equal to men because 50%+ of the population are women who would not support a system that treats them unfairly.

There was a time not long ago when women were not granted the right to have a say in the system, so it was irrevelant if they supported it or not.

In the days of slavery, there wasn't a thought that slaves shoudl be free, because white men were afraid that slaves would "do unto them what they did to slaves". In the end slaves were freed because enough people thought it was the right thing to do. (ie they thought that everyone had the universal right to be free).

[Riverwind]

There was a time not long ago when women were not granted the right to have a say in the system, so it was irrelevant if they supported it or not.

Women obtained rights because most men had mothers, wives and daughters. The fact that women had no formal voice in the system does not mean they could not influence the system.

In the end slaves were freed because enough people thought it was the right thing to do. (ie they thought that everyone had the universal right to be free).

People can empathize with other people. People who had no economic interest in slavery could visualize how they would feel if someone tried to enslave them. The principal of the golden rule still applies even though there was no immediate fear that whites would be enslaved themselves.

[ClearWest]

People can empathize with other people. People who had no economic interest in slavery could visualize how they would feel if someone tried to enslave them. The principal of the golden rule still applies even though there was no immediate fear that whites would be enslaved themselves.

Can people not empathize with a person who has been the victim of theft?

If I came into your house and took half of your belongings, that would be deemed at wrong. Yet, if a person who got the most votes at the last election signs a paper saying we have to give him this much money, that's suddenly okay. Then if we don't want to give them our money, they send men in fancy uniforms with guns to take our property from us by force. They may even put us behind bars, taking away our liberty.

Let's talk about slavery. The most obvious way to tell that someone is enslaved is if they are forced to work for no pay. A more indirect way is that they can let you work for whoever you want and then take large portions of what you earn.

Property is the product of someone's life and liberty. You work for forty years to buy a nice house on a nice piece of property. You worked all these long years, and what do you have to show for it? Well, your good health--but of course, the government has the power to take your kidneys if he thinks someone else needs it more after you're dead. You also have your piece of property--but of course, the government can take it from you if they think someone else (or even all of society) needs it more to build a road through it. You have your money--but of course, we are taxed all along, often 20-40% income tax, plus all the other indirectly collected taxes. Sales tax, taking more of your money everytime you get to the till. If you own a business it's another 15% or so of your return. Property tax from your local municipality.

So they take around half of the fruit of our labours, measured in a value of dollars. Are we not slaves to them? It seems like I'm working for the government more than I am for myself.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to do this. Not even a democratically elected beurocrat.

[Riverwind]

If I came into your house and took half of your belongings, that would be deemed at wrong. Yet, if a person who got the most votes at the last election signs a paper saying we have to give him this much money, that's suddenly okay.

Here we go again. Taxation is not theft. It is part of the contract required to live in a territory just like paying condo fees is part of the contract of condo ownership. You consented to this contract by choosing to live in the territory owned by the strata corporation. You may be frustrated because every livable piece of land on the globe is part of one of these super-strata corporations, however, that is not the fault of the corporations involved. Nor does it mean these corporations should be abolished.

[August1991]

If I came into your house and took half of your belongings, that would be deemed at wrong. Yet, if a person who got the most votes at the last election signs a paper saying we have to give him this much money, that's suddenly okay. Then if we don't want to give them our money, they send men in fancy uniforms with guns to take our property from us by force. They may even put us behind bars, taking away our liberty.

You are exactly right in your description, ClearWest. IMV, most of the lefist posters to this forum have little idea of what you are talking about. They don't understand the difference between an individual and the collective. Like Chomsky, they anthropomorphize a collective and believe a group behaves like an individual.

In this thread, I have tried to defend individual choice against the collective. Unfortunately, I am forced to respond to arguments of grandstanders like Chomsky, who make a career of criticizing "strong-man America" - turning a collective of 300 million people into One Big Bully.

Chomsky's good on broad generalizations, after the fact. Yet IMV, Chomsky is a fraud because he doesn't make the distinction between individuals and collectives. He never explains how collective action is the result of many individual choices. For a social scientist (like many leftists), Chomsky misses the critical point. He doesn't explain when and how millions of individual choices add up to a collective decision, and when they don't.

For that reason alone, for me, Chomsky's a fraud.

Some individual actions lead to a coherent collective action, but many other individual actions don't. A social science theorist who analyzes collective choice must explain how and when individual choices lead to a coherent collective decision, and when they don't. Chomsky never deals with individuals, preferring to blandly and falsely generalize.

For example, Chomsky would simply say that "Canada" is in favour of same sex marriage because the federal government has passed such legislation.

[Charles Anthony]

"You consented to this contract by choosing to live in the territory owned by the strata corporation. "

Much like a born-slave chooses slavery.

[Renegade]

If I came into your house and took half of your belongings, that would be deemed at wrong. Yet, if a person who got the most votes at the last election signs a paper saying we have to give him this much money, that's suddenly okay.

Here we go again. Taxation is not theft. It is part of the contract required to live in a territory just like paying condo fees is part of the contract of condo ownership. You consented to this contract by choosing to live in the territory owned by the strata corporation. You may be frustrated because every livable piece of land on the globe is part of one of these super-strata corporations, however, that is not the fault of the corporations involved. Nor does it mean these corporations should be abolished.

It is an interesting analogy but not accurate for the following reasons:

1. You explicitly choose to live in a condo and subject to the rules of the corporation. For most people they make no such explicit choice with the country they live and hence the taxation they are subject to.

2. If you deem the condo corporation to be levying unfair fees on you, you have a plethora of other choices. Freehold, renting, or co-op, or another condo. There are large but not insurmountable barriers to moving. Most other countries don't simply let you pick up and move there just becaue you like their taxation scheme, not to mention the much higher barriers to move.

3. The condo corporation is subject to the laws of the province which allows the condo corp to operate with some freedom but within a context where all the inhabatants are treated fairly. Any rules the condo passes are subservient to federal and provincial laws. If you feel a regulation a condo corp passes is unfair, you can take them to court. There is no such overriding governning body which ensures fair treatemetn with a government.

Do you think a condo corp can pass a regulation which says no one smoke in there own condo?

Do you think a condo corp can pass a regulation which says 49% of the condo owners should pay 100% of the condo fees? With a government such taxation is certainly possible.

[theloniusfleabag]

Taxes are meant to be 'tribute' to yourself, because you are part of 'everyone'. You own that which taxes paid for, insomuch as you are able to fight for it, should a neighbour covet it, and seek to take it. Taxes also enable people to conduct business easier.

[Renegade]

Taxes are meant to be 'tribute' to yourself, because you are part of 'everyone'. You own that which taxes paid for, insomuch as you are able to fight for it, should a neighbour covet it, and seek to take it. Taxes also enable people to conduct business easier.

So would you agree that the more you pay the more you own? Or perhaps you should only have to pay to the extent you "own".

Let's not glorify taxes. They are a necessary evil. If we could build and operate an infrastructure without any cost, that woudl be great, unfortunately we can't. Tax becomes how we allocate the cost-sharing burden. People accept that. What isn't accepted is the arbitrariness an percieved unfairness of the allocation.

[Riverwind]

1. You explicitly choose to live in a condo and subject to the rules of the corporation. For most people they make no such explicit choice with the country they live and hence the taxation they are subject to.

People who concent by inaction, still give their concent. When I was a starving student I had no problems moving around the world with little money. I could have choosen a lower cost, lower tax country but choose the more comfortable life that we have here (which includes paying taxes).

2. If you deem the condo corporation to be levying unfair fees on you, you have a plethora of other choices. Freehold, renting, or co-op, or another condo.

Most living in the Vancouver area only have the option of another condo. Furthermore, when the real estate market drops people are often stuck in the property they own because they owe more money than the property is worth. No matter which condo someone moves to they must concent to pay condo fees.

3. The condo corporation is subject to the laws of the province which allows the condo corp to operate with some freedom but within a context where all the inhabatants are treated fairly.

Define fair? Condo fees are accessed based on your asset value and not on your use of common properties. In other words, people with more expensive units pay more condo fees.

Do you think a condo corp can pass a regulation which says no one smoke in there own condo?

Yes. Condos could claim that smoking is a fire hazzard and the smoke drifts into the hallways and other apartments.

Do you think a condo corp can pass a regulation which says 49% of the condo owners should pay 100% of the condo fees? With a government such taxation is certainly possible.

Gov't would never be able to do that either so it is a red herring. As mentioned, condo fees are progressive in the sense that people who have more pay more.

[Charles Anthony]

"People who concent by inaction, still give their concent."

What is the definition of slavery?

[Riverwind]

What is the definition of slavery?

slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)

n. pl. slav·er·ies

The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

The practice of owning slaves.

A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.