Political Theory

Re: Libertarian ethics

JamesB — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:05:11 GMT

Sorry for the late reply. I had completely forgotten about this thread.

I think it's a little harder to justify property rights but, for reasons I'll explain in a moment, this may actually turn out to be a good thing.

The key rationale for property rights is that without them it's very hard to extend autonomy into the real world, or hard to protect it at least. All our actions require the use of some scarce, physical resources so if our use of them goes unprotected then so does everything we do. All property, with the exception of undeveloped land, was transformed by the co-operation of at least one person and the non-aggression principle prohibits any claim to the co-operation of others. Private property is just a protection of this right to opt out of other people's projects. To rightfully use a resource that's existence depended on someone else's co-operation requires that they aren't forced to let you make use of it.

The link between a person and their body is still stronger than the link between them and their property. All this means though is that less force is warranted in protecting property than people which lines up nicely with common sense.

Re: Libertarian ethics

mouser98 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:53:38 GMT

Yes, I can see how the same problem arises with public property and state borders. However this does not prove libertarian view of property rights to be ethical or correct. Could someone please tell me why libertarian property rights are valid? How do you know that your property is rightfully yours?

A discussion of the ethics of property rights has to begin with an understanding of self-ownership, and that has to begin with an understanding of the relationship between authority and responsibility. Authority and responsibility extend from each other, either can only effectively be practiced to the extent that the other exists.

I cannot be made responsible for my actions if I have no authority over my actions. Like a soldier who is ordered to kill someone. If we call it murder, we cannot accuse the soldier of murder, but whoever ordered him to do it.

Likewise, I can have no authority over my actions if I have no responsibility for them. The teenager living under his parents roof wants to be free to do as he pleases, yet wants his parents to provide him with shelter, food, a car, car insurance and money to buy gas for the car; he feels he should be free to get drunk and drive around if he likes, but he does not have that right while his father is paying his car insurance and his father must pay for the lawyers and the fines and such when the teenager is arrested. While the father has responsibility, he has authority, not the teen.

So, authority and responsibility go hand in hand, you cannot claim one or be saddled with one without having the other. Once you are responsible for yourself, you also have authority over yourself, you have self-ownership, and the NAP codifies your right to exercise your self-ownership.

As you own yourself, you own your actions, you own your labor, and you own the results of your labor. Lets say you desire to create a farm on which you intend to raise and supply a family. First you look around for a piece of real estate to either purchase or homestead; and then you get to work building your shelter, your fences, and your outbuildings, digging your well, clearing your land, plowing your fields, etc.

Along comes a social democrat who says to you: "You have created a very nice farm here, it can sustain a lot of people and because all property belongs to everyone, we have decided that this homeless family with live on it with you." You are dumbstruck because you know your small farm could not support more than five or six people at its maximum sustainable level of production, and with this new family living with you, you will not be able to have your own family.

You try to explain to the social democrat that had you known that all property belonged to everyone, you would not have bothered to create this farm, since you had no guarantee that you would be able to use it for your own purposes, that of raising a family, and instead you would have moved to the city, rented an apartment or just claimed one to use, and got a job taking property from one group and giving it to other groups.

Fortunately, at that moment, a passing libertarian steps over and says, "Excuse me, I couldn't help but overhear the conversation, and I think there is a misunderstanding here. This farmer has either homesteaded an unused piece of land or purchased an occupied piece of land from another, he has mixed his labor with this land to transform it from raw land into a wealth producing farm. His labor belongs to him, therefore the farm belongs to him, and while you might have been able to claim the raw land before it was transformed into a farm, you cannot now, because his farm depends on the land underneath for its continued existence. To take the land from him would necessarily result in the taking of his labor, which, because it extends from self-ownership, belongs to him."

I mixed in a bit of the utilitarian argument for property, in that the farmer would never have created the farm, which ultimately will be a benefit to society, as it will increase the overall wealth of the society, had the farmer suspected that his property rights would not be upheld. But even this is an ethical argument in the sense that one has the right to pursue his vision, and in order to pursue a vision of creating something out of raw resources, one must be able to rely on the continued ownership of those resources.

One aspect of libertarianism that might appeal to your social democratic sensibilities is the idea that in order to own something, you must be using it or maintaining it. If you are not using it or do not have some reasonably defensible plan for using it, then its considered to be abandoned and available for ownership by someone else. That means that all of that "publicly-owned" land out west would be available for homesteading. It also means that vast tracts of land currently owned by wealthy people that sit idle would be available for homesteading via squatters rights. Libertarian ownership is a double edged sword.

Re: Libertarian ethics

mikachusetts — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:26:26 GMT

Could someone please tell me why libertarian property rights are valid? How do you know that your property is rightfully yours?

Why do you need to know that property is rightfully yours? In your everyday life (when the state is not involved) how often to you have to prove that you rightfully own your property? In the cases that you do, you show proof with receipts, titles, etc., all of which align with the libertarian views of valid means to obtain property. Furthermore, when someone makes a claim against your property (once again ignoring the state), the burden of proof rests on them. You say "this is my toothbrush" and they must falsify that claim; this is how these disputes ACTUALLY happen.

If the issue is more about ethically or morally right, you won't find the answer on an internet forum.

Re: Libertarian ethics

Marko — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:33:18 GMT

Could someone please tell me why libertarian property rights are valid? How do you know that your property is rightfully yours?

I see it like this. I know my toothbrush is mine, because I have the best claim over it. There exists no one who can claim my toothbrush as his with greater validity than I can.

So there isn't some special connection between my toothbrush and me, it is just that it belongs to me more than it belongs to anyone else. This relation is in terms of law then deemed "ownership".

On the other hand I know that an object is unowned if there does not exist a person who can claim that object as his with more validity than anyone else could.

So it is just a matter of establishing rules of what makes a claim valid. There is a question then if any set of rules can be valid above another set. I would say law which is reliable, which in the same situation always says the same thing, which can not in any given situation be used to support opposite positions and which can be used to resolve any contest, is superior to law which is not reliable. The legislated law is notoriously unreliable where the law as argued for by us is not, therefore I can conclude that even where I can not be fully certain that my property is actually mine, I likely have a better idea than the state does.

As a natural rights libertarian I am also convinced that if you set out to write down a body of law which would be perfectly reliable it would be possible to write down one such system, but impossible to write down more than the one.

Re: Libertarian ethics

Angurse — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:58:08 GMT

Could someone please tell me why libertarian property rights are valid? How do you know that your property is rightfully yours?

Because enough people accept it as such.

Re: Libertarian ethics

Loppu — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:47:46 GMT

So did everybody get bored with my questions or why hasn't anybody answered?

Re: Libertarian ethics

Loppu — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:17:35 GMT

Otto said:"Lappu, as confusing property rights can get, surely you can understand that the same problem arises with public/state property and state borders. Do states rightfully own property? Why is it clean cut for the state and not for individual owners? :)"

Yes, I can see how the same problem arises with public property and state borders. However this does not prove libertarian view of property rights to be ethical or correct. Could someone please tell me why libertarian property rights are valid? How do you know that your property is rightfully yours?

Re: Libertarian ethics

Prateek Sanjay — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:33:36 GMT

Thanks, Adrian.

I think all in all (and Rothbard and Hayek definitely have indicated the same) liberty is not just one singular strong body of human thinking, but a smaller subset of other older philosophies that take root in higher ideals that go beyond liberty.

Perhaps that thing would be...high civilization?

Was the above not the reason that von Mises in the 1920s said (but wrongly) that fascism had saved western civilization, despite all its flaws?

Re: Libertarian ethics

AdrianHealey — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:11:14 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:

The worst mistake libertarians ever made was styling themselves as philosophers or speaking on morality. The problem is that most libertarians are from an economics, stock market, or business background and sometimes from technical sciences like computer science or neuroscience, and they may be experts in their own fields, but they absolutely reach a road block when they hit the issue of morality.

I'm a philosopher by background, with a degree that I gained at a university that focusses on the mind/body problem, philosophy of religion and philosophy of (the natural) sciences. And I'm still a libertarian. :p

Prateek Sanjay:
You see, there are far superior moral philosophers going back over several centuries like St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Libertarians, even the esteemed Henry Hazlitt, are inferior dwarves to such giants. They are also relatively contemporary. Any scholar of classics will tell you that John Locke was a mediocre thinker, and Rothbard himself tried to reach into old Christian traditions to understand morality while ignoring Messrs Locke, Smith, and Mills.

You are aware that there are, in fact, libertarian philosophers that base their ideas on parts of Aquinas or St. Augustine? We at the Murray Rothbard Institute are in a debate this instance on the concept of the relationship between transcendental concepts and individual rights and epistemic issues. Just sayin'.

I agree that John Locke is actually quite mediocre (regarding political philosophy) but that doesn't mean what he says isn't correct - to a certain extend. Locke and Rothbard were on to something, but both never quite got it in total (imo). In any case; you are aware that libertarian thought is rooted in the history of philosophy, right? It's not an modern accident or what not.

Prateek Sanjay:
Morality is a complicated issue, and one doesn't understand morality by thinking in isolation, but by basic involvement in everyday human life. It would have been one thing for libertarians to say that they were trying to deal with issues of their day and time, like chivalric codes during medieval days. But to universalize it to all people in all situations, they have not only made libertarianism a pseudo-religion, but an empty superficial one at that.

I don't think there is any substantial argument in this. More like a meta-argument; a general feeling. While I agree that it's possible to critique some libertarians for not being able to sustain deep philosophical arguments - me being one of them - it doesn't follow that the libertarian ideas as such are not developed or have no root in the history of philosophy.

Re: Libertarian ethics

liberty student — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:12:34 GMT

It's better to just ignore Prateek.

Re: Libertarian ethics

otto — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:42:34 GMT

Lappu, as confusing property rights can get, surely you can understand that the same problem arises with public/state property and state borders. Do states rightfully own property? Why is it clean cut for the state and not for individual owners? :)

Re: Libertarian ethics

Marko — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:04:40 GMT

I would like to see a religio-libertarian take a time machine, go to ancient Greece, and tell them that it is not worth defending their lands against Persians, because they should totally understand the Non-Aggression Pact.

1. The 'P' in NAP stands for principle not for pact.
2. The NAP does not preclude national defense, stop your slander.

Re: Libertarian ethics

I. Ryan — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:57:56 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:

Libertarians, even the esteemed Henry Hazlitt, are inferior dwarves to such giants.

What about Ludwig von Mises?

Re: Libertarian ethics

Prateek Sanjay — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:44:51 GMT

I was wondering if you guys could explain me why NAP and natural rights are valid?

Well, you see, they are not.

The worst mistake libertarians ever made was styling themselves as philosophers or speaking on morality. The problem is that most libertarians are from an economics, stock market, or business background and sometimes from technical sciences like computer science or neuroscience, and they may be experts in their own fields, but they absolutely reach a road block when they hit the issue of morality.

You see, there are far superior moral philosophers going back over several centuries like St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Libertarians, even the esteemed Henry Hazlitt, are inferior dwarves to such giants. They are also relatively contemporary. Any scholar of classics will tell you that John Locke was a mediocre thinker, and Rothbard himself tried to reach into old Christian traditions to understand morality while ignoring Messrs Locke, Smith, and Mills.

Morality is a complicated issue, and one doesn't understand morality by thinking in isolation, but by basic involvement in everyday human life. It would have been one thing for libertarians to say that they were trying to deal with issues of their day and time, like chivalric codes during medieval days. But to universalize it to all people in all situations, they have not only made libertarianism a pseudo-religion, but an empty superficial one at that.

Just understand that libertarians, let alone Austrians, are just a tiny drop among thousands of schools of thought and have no monopoly on the truth, and I would like to see a religio-libertarian take a time machine, go to ancient Greece, and tell them that it is not worth defending their lands against Persians, because they should totally understand the Non-Aggression Pact.

Re: Libertarian ethics

Loppu — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:08:18 GMT

Again I would like to thank everybody for attending to this topic.

Metus said:"The point is that the human brain as is favors the NAP as shown by brain scans."
Shown by brains scans? Please tell me more about that.

Metus said"You can accept die NAP based on a concept of natural rights such as the concept of God given right to live and bodily integrity or on utilitarian grounds as to some extent Mises did. I will give a hint to the latter and claim that history shows us that the more free a country is the more prosperous it is and the better the people fare"
Let's just for the sake of argument pretend that god does not exist(I'm atheist by the way) and that your claim "more free a country is the more prosperous it is and the better the people fare" is not true. Would you still support NAP?

Vaduka said"The purpose of NAP is to restore and/or keep the natural state of order between human individuals."
What is the natural state of order between human individuals?

I have more questions concerning libertarian world view and ethics. I think I can probably see the validity of NAP. I can see how NAP leads to value liberalism. There is just one problem and the problem is that I don't see how NAP leads to economic liberalism. When libertarians say stuff like "taxation is theft" etc. don't they already assume that the property they own rightly belongs to them? I'm not necessarily claiming that all property of every human being belongs to the state but I would like to know where do you libertarians base property rights and stuff like that. How can you be sure that what you own are rightly yours?