Political Theory

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Bostwick — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:43:39 GMT

David Friedman:
The sort of bright line natural rights position I was arguing against holds that it is wrong to violate people's rights, and I don't think it provides any way of deciding how large the violation has to be to count.

I see. I had assumed we were talking from a legal standpoint. If libertarianism is the idea that all rights are property rights then libertarianism is inseparable from legality.

Legality and morality, however, are not interchangeable. For example, it is not an internal contradiction to believe that there can be no positive legal obligations, but still believe in some positive moral obligatons.

While an individual may consider himself morally justified in stealing the rifle, that does not translate into legal justification. Rights cannot conflict. The rifle owner and the potential rifle thief can not have an equal claim to the rifle, one must always be able to defend the rifle against the other.

This problem becomes much more clear when we look at your discussion of the draft. In order for the draft to be "defendable" in times of need it would have to happen that those draftable individuals would have to lose their self ownership which would then transfer to draftor. It can not be that everyone gains equal right to draft everyone else, as this also violates the axiom that rights cannot conflict.

But who should lose their self ownership and who should gain ownership of them must be completely arbitrary. Why should legislatures draft citizens into the army, instead of citizens drafting the legislatures? Why should Town A draft Town B to defend against Town C, instead of Town B drafting Town A to defend themselves from Town C?

Moral or immoral, stealing the rifle, or enslaving your neighbor, incurs a legal liability. A somewhat minor restitution would be required of the rifle thief for the temporary use of another's property, but to kidnap a person and sending them to die your place is murder. The law serves to remedy the externiality created by the criminal, preventing the temporary stealing of the rifle from becoming a tax imposed on the rifle owner for the sake of providing the thief's defense.

David Friedman:

Do you approve of the same principle in the context of eminent domain? The government takes your property and then pays you what purports to be a fair price for it. Is the only think wrong that they may pay less than the land is actually worth?

This is somewhat separate from the rifle scenario, as the government is not simply possessing property against the will of the owner but declares itself empowered to grant itself new ownership. But it does also suffer from the conflicting of rights. Granting the power exclusively to the state helps disguise it, but even that distinction is ultimately arbitrary.

Hope I didn't keep you waiting for a reply. I've been busy.

P.S. I hope you stick around the forum, too!

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

liberty student — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:07:56 GMT

Mr. Friedman, I really enjoyed your talk at Google (my introduction to your ideas).

Your position on natural rights is very interesting.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Pablo — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:47:20 GMT

liberty student:
Ayn Rand - Mike Wallace Interview

Is it just me, or are her eyes really twitchy in those videos?

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Andrew Cain — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:00:00 GMT

I'd like to jump in here because it looks interesting. It looks like we are basicially having issue with the continualism of an individual's property skyward.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

David Friedman — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:53:22 GMT

Actually, my argument wasn't about the rights of the landowner to stop you from flying over. It was about whether you were morally entitled to do it. The sort of bright line natural rights position I was arguing against holds that it is wrong to violate people's rights, and I don't think it provides any way of deciding how large the violation has to be to count. If crashing your plane into someone's house violates his rights, then one would think imposing a risk of doing so violates them too, hence you cannot morally fly (or drive, as you suggest, or ... .).

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

David Friedman — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:48:24 GMT

Or in other words, you think it is morally right to violate rights under those circumstances? If not, why would you do it?

Your "accept the consequences" suggests to me that you think it's all right to take someone else's property as long as you are willing to pay a fine for doing so. Do you approve of the same principle in the context of eminent domain? The government takes your property and then pays you what purports to be a fair price for it. Is the only think wrong that they may pay less than the land is actually worth?

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Bostwick — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 03:29:12 GMT

ivanfoofoo:

I just don't get the utilitarian argument of the rifle stealing defense scenario. I think that stealing is ALWAYS bad, it just doesn't matter what consequences it has. If you ask what would I do in that scenario, I'd steal the gun, and shoot the maniac, and then accept the consequences anyway. If the victim (the guy who I stole the gun from) is a rational guy, he won't sue me.

Hey, no fair poisoning the well before Mr Friedman even replies.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

ivanfoofoo — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 03:16:39 GMT

I just don't get the utilitarian argument of the rifle stealing defense scenario. I think that stealing is ALWAYS bad, it just doesn't matter what consequences it has. If you ask what would I do in that scenario, I'd steal the gun, and shoot the maniac, and then accept the consequences anyway. If the victim (the guy who I stole the gun from) is a rational guy, he won't sue me.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Bostwick — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:33:55 GMT

David Friedman:

JonBostwick:

[

No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property.

Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property.

The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it.

Nor did I ever suggest that it did. My argument had nothing to do with trespass.

I gather you haven't read the chapter you are criticizing.

Nice to see you here! I enjoyed your pieces in Anarchy and the Law.

I have actually read it.

If I recall correctly, your point was that flying over a certain area created a risk of falling out of the sky. If a person is entitled to prevent a gun from being pointed at them due to the risk of property invasion then they are also entitled to prevent planes from flying over for the same reason. You were attempting to a show defect in the natural rights theory of property.

I expanded that analogy by including a car driving next to the property. There is also a risk that the car could drive off the road and into the property.

True, a property owner can respond to any action that involves risk of damage to property, but another important aspect of natural rights theory of property is proportionality. The property owner is limited to actions that are in proportion with the actual threat. In the case of an airplane or car traveling near their property, that risk approaches zero.

If for some reason the risk is higher, you live near an overpass that cars are known to drive off perhaps, you can sue the road owner to "make safe" the road.

I'd love to discuss your rifle stealing self defense scenario with you, if you have the time. I think you would enjoy the Libertarian solution.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:18:42 GMT

I just posted on a similar issue. At first I seemed sorry I didn't search the forums further (though 2 days ago I couldn't find a suitable answer), but my approach is different.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8377.aspx

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Andrew Cain — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:42:35 GMT

liberty student:
Professor_Blitzkrieg:
If I own all the water, and I choose not to give you any. I'm hurting you way worse than I would if I punched you.

Isn't this a Nozickian criticque which Rothbard famously coined 'Drop dead' argument?

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

Andrew Cain — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:37:46 GMT

This is why utilitarian arguments are ALWAYS moral and ethical arguments, based upon the values of the individuals having the argument.

There is no morality to utilitarianism. To quote the old idiom 'greatest good for the greatest amount'. I really don't see utilitarianism as proposing anything beyond the arbitary majority of an given issue.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

David Friedman — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:47:03 GMT

JonBostwick:

[

No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property.

Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property.

The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it.

Nor did I ever suggest that it did. My argument had nothing to do with trespass.

I gather you haven't read the chapter you are criticizing.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

E. R. Olovetto — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:24:57 GMT

JonBostwick:

ivanfoofoo:
That David Friedman's article is a nice reductio ad absurdum-style refutation attempt of natural rights. Hoppe was a word on that, it's the chronological concept of property. Taking Friedman's example, the airplane pilot would have to get the permission of all the inhabitants of the houses below his route, if he established his route after the inhabitants started residing there.

No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property.

Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property.

The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it.

Rothbard gives an example somewhere of an airport homesteading a certain amount, say 50 dB, of "noise generation easement rights" over an area of previously unowned land. Those who build a neighborhood within this soundscape are required to allow the overhead airplane traffic. If the airport grows to where it starts emitting 75 dB of noise over this neighborhood, the emission of this additional 25 dB of noise pollution would be considered an act of aggression. Terminology like "working the land" are clearly outmoded when trying to get a grasp on a proper approach to determining property rights in our modern era. Likewise, the ancient common law approach of cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos, or "for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell", isn't compatible with a rational approach to arbitration of property rights today. Just saying one way or another that the landholder has a say in the airplane travel is insufficient.

Re: Is government categorically illegit? Problems

DanielMuff — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:50:54 GMT

JonBostwick:

malgratloprekindle:
Blackmail is still an initiation of force. Like libel, slander, character assassination. etc; it still causes harm to a person and violates their right of privacy.

... Your reputation is nothing more than what other people think of you. You don't own your reputation because you don't own other people's thoughts.

This. Walter Block pointed this out in his Defending the Undefendable.