(Apparently that’s too short for the spam filter so I added this)
[Incredibly long rant, I’m sorry.]
Most Libertarians today support the use of government force to protect private property. That is, they don’t just believe the sole purpose of the government is to prevent the use of force in society, they advocate the use of the force of law to stop other people taking their stuff. The justifications for this are deep and varied.
The typical justification you’ll hear from non-libertarians is to point at the effect enforcement of property laws has on a society’s wealth, etc. These are utilitarian arguments and I don’t feel they are compatible with Libertarian philosophy (plus they’re really hard to prove).
The typical Libertarian justification is to expand the concept of self or freedom to include private property.
The former, invoking concepts of “self ownership” and making property the central element of Libertarianism, is not just a reach, it’s damaging to the overall legitimacy of the ideology.
The later, however, has an element of truth to it, compare private property to communal property. One cannot use communal property without first asking others for permission, or at least asking for the rules of its use. Putting forward the freedom of the individual as the guiding principle of Libertarianism, it makes sense to favor private property over communal property.
But there’s a flaw in this logic, a false dichotomy. All the things in the world can not be just divided up into private and communal property.. some things are not property at all. The air we breath, the light we receive from the Sun.. and some other things that are extremely difficult to make property, such as anything copyable. In fact, before anything becomes property, it is not property. What makes something property is a simple declaration, backed up by force.
Having made an argument for force to protect property, in order to protect freedom, we’re now faced with the question, when is force detrimental to freedom? Slavery is an obvious answer. Imprisonment is another. Murder is only slight harder, you have to make the argument that the dead have no freedom, but that seems reasonable. Clearly if your goal is to protect freedom, individuals cannot be free to enslave, imprison or kill.
However, in the name of protecting property Libertarians often call on the state to enslave or imprison and they often cite their right to bare arms to kill. Simply, the freedom of others is to be sacrificed to protect private property.
If we acknowledge that private property is merely a placeholder for individual freedom then the morality of theft from a Libertarian perspective becomes clear: the use of retaliatory force is only justified if the owner is would be deprived of freedom.
Some examples:
* If I steal your car, you no longer can use it. My freedom is equally increased at the expense of yours without consent, this justifies you to use force against me, but preferably do it through the law so there’s no reprisal.
* If I’m starving and I steal a loaf of bread from your bakery, my freedom is unequally increased (I don’t die from starvation) at the expensive of yours (you can’t exchange that loaf for others goods and services of your choosing), this dos not justify you to use force against me.
And as much as the rich may dislike it, the same Libertarian logic that says the state should hold a monopoly on force, can be used to suggest that theft by the state to feed the poor is justified – it protects freedom.
“this dos not justify you to use force against me.”
Take my loaf of bread and you will see how incorrect your assumption is.
Trent is creating his own highly skewed version of what a libertarian is and then knocking it down. Libertarians do not say that government *should* have a monopoly on force, they (we) say that government *does* have a monopoly on force, which is why everyone wants to get their hands on the levers and what leads to most of the problems. It is precisely this monopoly on force that makes politicians and government dangerous – you have no defense, short of revolution – and why we insist that government must be kept as small as humanly possible.
[Incredibly long rant, I’m sorry.]
You owe us an apology not for the length, but the content. It’s as though you’re incredibly unfamiliar with the concepts of classical liberalism, natural rights theory or philosophy in general. If I had to straighten-out that p.o.s. somewhere, I’d start first by pointing out that “Libertarianism” is deontological, not teleological – so all that verbiage about “increasing freedom” should be thrown out. Thus “stealing” by definition of the word is immoral.
Bill Maron,
that kind of thinking is becoming SO pervasive, so accepted and so ingrained, that I think it’s the reason more people are taking CCH classes and buying guns. I’ve talked to two different people I know well, who separately told me they are considering SQUATTING instead of staying in houses they can’t hardly pay for.
These were hardworking, upper middle-class, conservatives…last year.
Now they think someone owes them something. Why?
“But it means you’re not taking from people who’ve worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard.”
I’m sure the bankers and hedge fund managers pulling in 7 or 8 figures feel this applies to them, regardless of whether or not they a) worked hard or b) used money they were entitled to do so.
I heard the other day that “average” CEO pay is now up to $10M(ish) – so does that mean that the CEO is working 100x plus “harder” than an “average” worker working in the same organisation?
Sure, in theory the “buck” stops with the CEO, but then again, I suspect that they also will have a set of contract clauses that mean that they can’t be got rid of without enough money to retire on. The mid-level PM pulling in $140K isn’t going to have those.
So I’m left wondering who these mythical “people” he’s referring to actually are. Because they’re probably not the people he’s thinking of.
“Now they think someone owes them something. Why?”
Why are you asking me? I don’t think anyone owes me nor would I squat in a house I no longer could afford. I do worry that some will let their sense of entitlement apply to me and mine and so I am prepared for that possibility. Considering the profligate giveaways to favored private parties by our current administration, I do understand the concern by hard working, politically unconnected people.
“I’m sure the bankers and hedge fund managers pulling in 7 or 8 figures feel this applies to them, regardless of whether or not they a) worked hard or b) used money they were entitled to do so.”
I know energy traders who made their company’s BIG bucks and were rewarded very well. They think they worked very hard and the profits from their efforts bear that out. If you want to engage in class warfare about what defines hard work I think you’ll have to work hard to convince a sane person that making your company say 100 mil didn’t make you eligible for 6 or 7 figures.
So I’m left wondering who these mythical “people” he’s referring to actually are.
It thinks America is populated only by bankers, hedge fund managers and CEOs. No wonder it’s confused.
Amen brother!
(Apparently that’s too short for the spam filter so I added this)
[Incredibly long rant, I’m sorry.]
Most Libertarians today support the use of government force to protect private property. That is, they don’t just believe the sole purpose of the government is to prevent the use of force in society, they advocate the use of the force of law to stop other people taking their stuff. The justifications for this are deep and varied.
The typical justification you’ll hear from non-libertarians is to point at the effect enforcement of property laws has on a society’s wealth, etc. These are utilitarian arguments and I don’t feel they are compatible with Libertarian philosophy (plus they’re really hard to prove).
The typical Libertarian justification is to expand the concept of self or freedom to include private property.
The former, invoking concepts of “self ownership” and making property the central element of Libertarianism, is not just a reach, it’s damaging to the overall legitimacy of the ideology.
The later, however, has an element of truth to it, compare private property to communal property. One cannot use communal property without first asking others for permission, or at least asking for the rules of its use. Putting forward the freedom of the individual as the guiding principle of Libertarianism, it makes sense to favor private property over communal property.
But there’s a flaw in this logic, a false dichotomy. All the things in the world can not be just divided up into private and communal property.. some things are not property at all. The air we breath, the light we receive from the Sun.. and some other things that are extremely difficult to make property, such as anything copyable. In fact, before anything becomes property, it is not property. What makes something property is a simple declaration, backed up by force.
Having made an argument for force to protect property, in order to protect freedom, we’re now faced with the question, when is force detrimental to freedom? Slavery is an obvious answer. Imprisonment is another. Murder is only slight harder, you have to make the argument that the dead have no freedom, but that seems reasonable. Clearly if your goal is to protect freedom, individuals cannot be free to enslave, imprison or kill.
However, in the name of protecting property Libertarians often call on the state to enslave or imprison and they often cite their right to bare arms to kill. Simply, the freedom of others is to be sacrificed to protect private property.
If we acknowledge that private property is merely a placeholder for individual freedom then the morality of theft from a Libertarian perspective becomes clear: the use of retaliatory force is only justified if the owner is would be deprived of freedom.
Some examples:
* If I steal your car, you no longer can use it. My freedom is equally increased at the expense of yours without consent, this justifies you to use force against me, but preferably do it through the law so there’s no reprisal.
* If I’m starving and I steal a loaf of bread from your bakery, my freedom is unequally increased (I don’t die from starvation) at the expensive of yours (you can’t exchange that loaf for others goods and services of your choosing), this dos not justify you to use force against me.
And as much as the rich may dislike it, the same Libertarian logic that says the state should hold a monopoly on force, can be used to suggest that theft by the state to feed the poor is justified – it protects freedom.
“this dos not justify you to use force against me.”
Take my loaf of bread and you will see how incorrect your assumption is.
Trent is creating his own highly skewed version of what a libertarian is and then knocking it down. Libertarians do not say that government *should* have a monopoly on force, they (we) say that government *does* have a monopoly on force, which is why everyone wants to get their hands on the levers and what leads to most of the problems. It is precisely this monopoly on force that makes politicians and government dangerous – you have no defense, short of revolution – and why we insist that government must be kept as small as humanly possible.
You owe us an apology not for the length, but the content. It’s as though you’re incredibly unfamiliar with the concepts of classical liberalism, natural rights theory or philosophy in general. If I had to straighten-out that p.o.s. somewhere, I’d start first by pointing out that “Libertarianism” is deontological, not teleological – so all that verbiage about “increasing freedom” should be thrown out. Thus “stealing” by definition of the word is immoral.
Bill Maron,
that kind of thinking is becoming SO pervasive, so accepted and so ingrained, that I think it’s the reason more people are taking CCH classes and buying guns. I’ve talked to two different people I know well, who separately told me they are considering SQUATTING instead of staying in houses they can’t hardly pay for.
These were hardworking, upper middle-class, conservatives…last year.
Now they think someone owes them something. Why?
“But it means you’re not taking from people who’ve worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard.”
I’m sure the bankers and hedge fund managers pulling in 7 or 8 figures feel this applies to them, regardless of whether or not they a) worked hard or b) used money they were entitled to do so.
I heard the other day that “average” CEO pay is now up to $10M(ish) – so does that mean that the CEO is working 100x plus “harder” than an “average” worker working in the same organisation?
Sure, in theory the “buck” stops with the CEO, but then again, I suspect that they also will have a set of contract clauses that mean that they can’t be got rid of without enough money to retire on. The mid-level PM pulling in $140K isn’t going to have those.
So I’m left wondering who these mythical “people” he’s referring to actually are. Because they’re probably not the people he’s thinking of.
“Now they think someone owes them something. Why?”
Why are you asking me? I don’t think anyone owes me nor would I squat in a house I no longer could afford. I do worry that some will let their sense of entitlement apply to me and mine and so I am prepared for that possibility. Considering the profligate giveaways to favored private parties by our current administration, I do understand the concern by hard working, politically unconnected people.
“I’m sure the bankers and hedge fund managers pulling in 7 or 8 figures feel this applies to them, regardless of whether or not they a) worked hard or b) used money they were entitled to do so.”
I know energy traders who made their company’s BIG bucks and were rewarded very well. They think they worked very hard and the profits from their efforts bear that out. If you want to engage in class warfare about what defines hard work I think you’ll have to work hard to convince a sane person that making your company say 100 mil didn’t make you eligible for 6 or 7 figures.
It thinks America is populated only by bankers, hedge fund managers and CEOs. No wonder it’s confused.