Political Theory

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Autolykos — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 03:30:12 GMT

Mark:
Quite right. However the preceding comments ignore the fact (well, my experience to be more precise) that those on the left consider themselves to have the moral high ground over us heartless capitalist bastards - i.e. they 'care' and we 'don't'. So if they truly do 'care' then should my initial attack give them something to think about?

Well, let's take a look at your OP:

Mark:
The main smear/argument against libertarian advocates of personal freedom is that by taking the government out of the equation and allowing individuals to decide who they will allow in their lives/places of business etc., 'overwhelmingly dominant social groups' could ruin the lives of minorities by refusing to sell them food, offer them work etc., therefore government intrusion is needed to preserve the dignity/lives/opportunities of minorities. (I'm ignoring the obvious comeback that in a democracy an overwhelmingly dominant social group could vote these policies in anyway).

My counter-argument would be that no one is a priori or prima facie entitled to buy a given good or service from a given person or group of people. Another way of putting this is that no one is a priori or prima facie obligated to sell a given good or service to a given person or group of people.

Mark:
My 'new' comeback to this is: A member of a minority expelled from a restaurant is 100% certain to find SOMEONE who will sell him some dinner, but a foetus expelled from a womb has precisely 0% chance of finding another womb to take him in and therefore is GUARANTEED to lose hisdignity/opportunity/life. So someone who supports abortion rights - which are the ultimate enforcement of private property rights -is irretrievably, disgustingly hypocritical if they don't support other kinds of property rights too.

There is no 100% certainty about the future - either that something will happen or that it won't happen. However, I think the first case is highly likely and the second case extremely unlikely. On the other hand, like others have already suggested, there's no necessary reason to define "human" such that a freshly created zygote qualifies.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

James — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:00:53 GMT

an acorn is not an oak, a fetus, is not a human. That's the point of most "pro"-abortionists.

I'm not sure that's relevant. You're just as entitled to destroy an oak tree as you are an acorn, subject to being or having the consent of its owner. Besides, a sapling isn't an oak tree either.

It's difficult to pinpoint a moment, such as conception or birth, when a foetus instantaneously becomes a "human".

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

MaikU — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:00:35 GMT

true liberty and fetus "rights" are only possible without the monopoly on force. For one group of anarchists it's freedom to evict fetus from a womb. To other groupd it's freedom to live in a society where this action is prohibited. Pretty much all happy. Well, unless you want to impose your values and beliefs onto others with guns and bombs.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Mark — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:37:49 GMT

These are the kind of responses I'm trying to fish from the thread. Thanks!

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

MaikU — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:28:47 GMT

an acorn is not an oak, a fetus, is not a human. That's the point of most "pro"-abortionists.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Mark — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:14:46 GMT

Quite right. However the preceding comments ignore the fact (well, my experience to be more precise) that those on the left consider themselves to have the moral high ground over us heartless capitalist bastards - i.e. they 'care' and we 'don't'. So if they truly do 'care' then should my initial attack give them something to think about?

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Autolykos — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:46:54 GMT

Charles Anthony's point is about logic. Things like the self-ownership and non-aggression principles are premises, not conclusions. Any attempt to justify them logically runs into the is-ought problem. Circular reasoning and/or begging the question ensue.

Morality isn't a physical force like gravity is. We're not bound by any given moral system unless we want to be.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Eric080 — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:06:17 GMT

I think Charles Anthony has missed the fact that the default position for any person growing up in today's society is moral realism and moral universalism.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Wheylous — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:01:53 GMT

I think most people would agree to some universality pronciple at the end.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Mark — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:25:52 GMT

It doesn't require them to subscribe to any set of rules, universal or otherwise - the point was to expose (either to them, or other people watching) the sheer hypocrisy of taking a self-righteous stand against the property rights of the restaurant owner, whilst simultaneously taking a stand in favour of the property rights of the pregnant mother. Whatever set of rules they do or don't subscribe to, hopefully the glaring contradiction would be apparent to them.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Charles Anthony — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:25:09 GMT

It does have a fatal flaw: it presumes that everybody must follow the same universal rules.

Lots of libertarians fail to understand that there is no natural law of the physical world that says everybody must follow the same rules of property rights.

Most non-libertarians do not care to have universal rules and there is no reason why they should.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Gumdy — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:57:19 GMT

This presumes your opponent considers a fetus to be a moral agent entitled to rights, in the same way an adult is.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Wheylous — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:27:53 GMT

There we go:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25435/434727.aspx#434727

Democrats are typically pro-choice. Obviously, they believe the mother has no obligation to feed the fetus. Hence, if even family ties do not matter to them, then how are entitlements in any way justified? BAM.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

Wheylous — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:26:26 GMT

I think I may have posted on this before. Lemme try to find it.

Re: Concise refutation of 'liberal' arguments against personal freedom/private property rights.

xahrx — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:42:15 GMT

Your argument presumes your opponent gives a damn about consistency and logic.