The Challenge of Libertarianism

[MrMarxist]

Hello all,

I recently read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It's great work of political philosophy, even if you (like me) aren't happy with its conclusions. Anyway, Nozick presents powerful arguments for a minimal state, that is, a state limited to protecting individuals from force, fraud, and theft. He argues that any more extensive state violates peoples' rights.

What bothers me particularly are Nozick's arguments against taxation and redistribution of wealth. He holds a Lockean account of property acquisition, whereby an unowned resource becomes yours when you invest your labor in it. Nozick argues that to take property from someone is no different than enslaving them for whatever amount of time they invested to appropriate that property. Hence, taxation is morally on par with forced labor. How can leftists respond to this? How can we criticize property rights while upholding individual autonomy and security of person?

[Geiseric]

They didn't actually work for the factory that they own. They moved their money into stock or bonds of a few letters that a little number rating determined was increasing in mythical value.

Investments =/= labor.

[Railyon]

He holds a Lockean account of property acquisition, whereby an unowned resource becomes yours when you invest your labor in it. Nozick argues that to take property from someone is no different than enslaving them for whatever amount of time they invested to appropriate that property. Hence, taxation is morally on par with forced labor. How can leftists respond to this?

Two words: Primitive Accumulation. The argument flies out the window right there because that is what happened, taking property from someone.

[Caj]

Well, the bourgeoisie don't invest any of their own labor into their property, so they clearly don't own it by that standard.

[MrMarxist]

Ok, you've all made pretty much the same point which that the owners didn't actually do any work, or that they didn't invest their labor. They either just invested in stock to make their money, or they took their property by force.

But I think Nozick's point is more theoretical. You may be absolutely right about what actually happened, but suppose that a factory owner got the wealth to build a factory by working for it fairly. He then promised wages to anyone who works in that factory for him. Some workers sign up to work and get paid. Then the government comes and takes a percentage of their earnings and his profits, even though all the earnings/profits were made legitimately (the workers are there voluntarily, and the owner owns the factory). My question is, given this situation, why isn't taxation theft? Why is the state entitled to any money at all in this scenario?

Thanks for your replies.

[MrMarxist]

They didn't actually work for the factory that they own. They moved their money into stock or bonds of a few letters that a little number rating determined was increasing in mythical value.

Investments =/= labor.

Suppose that they did work for the factory, so that any money invested was actually earned by labor. (Whether this actually happened is questionable, but suppose it did, for the sake of argument).

[kashkin]

Two words: Primitive Accumulation. The argument flies out the window right there because that is what happened, taking property from someone.

Er, could you explain that in brief please?

[Veovis]

Er, could you explain that in brief please?

All property currently owned was expropriated from someone else or some other group. Take as an example the common pastures in medieval Europe. These were held in common by the people but were slowly carved up and claimed by individual bourgeois. Therefore, the concept of private property itself violates libertarian premises.

[kashkin]

Ah right, I see what you mean. I just didn't know it was called Primitive Accumulation.

[Questionable]

Libertarianism seems so ahistorical to me. How can anyone argue how private property rights are natural and humane when they arose through a history of violence and coercion? Hell, private property by its very nature is a form of coercion, since you're stopping someone else from owning whatever the thing is.

[kashkin]

Exactly, property didn't just come out of nowhere and the capitalist just picked it up off the ground. Ownership of land came from either claiming that a piece of land was yours, or pushing the previous owners off it.

[Railyon]

Libertarianism seems so ahistorical to me.

Exactly, even the notion of unowned resources is pretty absurd past the first round of accumulation; there just isn't anything worthwhile unowned under the system of private property!

That's usually where the right wingers bust out a Robinsonade. Even Marx was already mocking that.

[Left Leanings]

Nozick's the guy who advocates, that the only legitimate use of taxation, is to support the armed services? And that even the Police should be privatized?

Am I right in thinking this? I recall a discussion about him years ago in a tutorial.

The tutor told us that Nozick and Tory leader Margaret Thatcher, used to attend seminars together.

I had an even stronger disliking for her after hearing that.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is two things we need to tackle here. First, private ownership of land and second private ownership of the means of production.

The Lockean principle argues that when I mix my labour with land, the land becomes my private property. Similarly, we could argue that therefore I'm going to fish in the sea, now it's my private property, or I caught a bird, now that part of the sky is my private property.

It is ridiculous.


Well, the bourgeoisie don't invest any of their own labor into their property, so they clearly don't own it by that standard.

A right-wing libertarian easily counters this by saying that the capitalist used the money he earned with his own labour as a worker paid for the means of production.

The means of production cannot be legitimately monopolised by the few as all of society is dependent on them for access to the very means of life. The right to property, then, contradicts the right to life.

Wage labour means the subjugation of the worker to an employer. The worker loses his autonomy. This is not voluntary as the worker is deprived of access the means of production on which he depends for access to the very means of life, i.e. he sells his freedom to live.

[robbo203]

Well, the bourgeoisie don't invest any of their own labor into their property, so they clearly don't own it by that standard.


It was the early American neo-classical economist, John Bates Clark, who is partificularly closely identified with the dogma that the division of wealth under capitalism is perfectly justified. As he put it

"the distribution of income [is] controlled by a natural law, and...this law, if it worked without friction, would give to every agent of production the amount of wealth which that agent creates....Free competition tends to give labor what labor creates, to capitalists what capital creates, and to entrepreneurs what the coordinating function creates. (quoted in Michael Perelman, The Perverse Economy: The Impact of Markets on People and the Environment, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 p. 152).


Others in the neoclassical tradition lke Arthur Marshall maintained that labour acting on nature-given resources is not the only source of wealth. There was also some other mysterious ingredient which he called "waiting" that creates wealth. In his Principles of Economics Marshall citing the example of yarm spun in a factory, argued

If we admit that it is the product of labour alone , and not of labour and waiting, we can no doubt be compelled by inexorable logic that there is no justification of interest, the reward of waiting; for the conclusion is implied in the premiss (Principles of Economics 9th edition, MacMillan , London, 1961 vol , p.587)



I dont think he meant by "waiting" as in "waiting at a bus stop for a bus to turn up" but more something like "deferred gratification". So somehow, in some strange and inexplicable way, "waiting" on the part of capitalists - using part of their income stream as capital rather than spending it to enhance their already luxurious lifestyles - contributes to the production of wealth . And this is the metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is supposed to represent the very acme of bourgeois economics. Its pure idelogy dressed up as science. It is a classic example of alienation in the Marxian sense - vesting a creative power in this thing we call money which actually emanates from, and resides in, ourselves.

And these people have the nerve to rubbish the labour theory of value on the grounds such as the "reduction" problem - the problem of being able to to calculate the relative contributions of sklled labour and simple labour to output in precise quantitative terms. How exactly do bourgeois economists justify in precise quantitative terms their ex cathedra type statements such as competition tends to give labor what labor creates, to capitalists what capital creates, and to entrepreneurs what the coordinating function creates?

[MrMarxist]

Libertarianism seems so ahistorical to me. How can anyone argue how private property rights are natural and humane when they arose through a history of violence and coercion? Hell, private property by its very nature is a form of coercion, since you're stopping someone else from owning whatever the thing is.

I agree with you, but what would you say to a libertarian who said, "The abolition of private property is coercive as well, since you're stopping me from privately owning whatever the thing is."

Also, doesn't the problem of primitive accumulation confront collectives as well? If we assume that all of the world's resources were originally unowned, it seems that they have to be claimed/appropriated regardless of whether we're talking about a libertarian society or an egalitarian one. If it's illegitimate for an individual to claim property for himself, why is it ok for a collective to do so?

(I'm not a libertarian, just for the record. I'm firmly on the left but disturbed by libertarian arguments.)

[Railyon]

I agree with you, but what would you say to a libertarian who said, "The abolition of private property is coercive as well, since you're stopping me from privately owning whatever the thing is."

Because the institution of private property is coercive and exploitative - that's a given, so how is ending exploitative relations coercive? One could make a purely utilitarian argument out of it, for example, or do it like the ICC and hammer the fact home that capitalism is going to collapse because of its own contradictions. There are many ways.



Also, doesn't the problem of primitive accumulation confront collectives as well? If we assume that all of the world's resources were originally unowned, it seems that they have to be claimed/appropriated regardless of whether we're talking about a libertarian society or an egalitarian one. If it's illegitimate for an individual to claim property for himself, why is it ok for a collective to do so?

For all practical purposes, everyone owning "everything" (well in this case the means of production) is about the same as no one owning anything, wouldn't you agree? If stuff doesn't belong to anyone, it's up for grabs; the same would apply to common ownership.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

but suppose that a factory owner got the wealth to build a factory by working for it fairly.
Are you serious? You don't get wealth "fairly" under capitalism.

[MrMarxist]

the institution of private property is coercive and exploitative - that's a given

If this is so obvious then maybe you can tell me why. I'm not saying that private property is not coercive and exploitative, but if we on the left are to be taken seriously, we need to give reasons for statements like this.


Are you serious? You don't get wealth "fairly" under capitalism.

Again, this is the point that needs to be proved. In order to respond to the libertarian, we can't just say this; we have to say why it's so.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hello all,

I recently read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It's great work of political philosophy, even if you (like me) aren't happy with its conclusions. Anyway, Nozick presents powerful arguments for a minimal state, that is, a state limited to protecting individuals from force, fraud, and theft. He argues that any more extensive state violates peoples' rights.

What bothers me particularly are Nozick's arguments against taxation and redistribution of wealth. He holds a Lockean account of property acquisition, whereby an unowned resource becomes yours when you invest your labor in it. Nozick argues that to take property from someone is no different than enslaving them for whatever amount of time they invested to appropriate that property. Hence, taxation is morally on par with forced labor. How can leftists respond to this? How can we criticize property rights while upholding individual autonomy and security of person?

1. Revleftism is not about welfarism. Some of us (like me) think they are fine ideas. But it maintains a very low position on the scale of our priorities.
2. Lockean homesteading if taken to its logical conclusion would be fiercely anti-capitalist. Capitalism is by definition "taking property from the people who labor upon it." I'm sure Nozz didn't make that jump tho...
3. Taxation is forced labor (under an income tax. I don't see how it could be forced "labor" under say a property tax). Libertarian leftists actually agree on this point. We just take #2 into consideration and see the market domination as forced labor as well.

"How can we criticize...?" because property "rights" inherently restrict individual autonomy and security of person. ... not to mention that your question has almost nothing to do with the rest of your post... it's not clear how you're set up leads to the question.

[Revolution starts with U]

But I think Nozick's point is more theoretical. You may be absolutely right about what actually happened, but suppose that a factory owner got the wealth to build a factory by working for it fairly.
Ok.. so we're supposing magic now?
Simply put, capitalism does not furnish common labor with the neccessary money to start a business. He must do so through investments, either in the market, or a bank; both of which pressuppose he made that money through the exploitation of labor, ie not fairly.
But either way... I'll bite. Let's suppose none of this is true and he somehow magically made the money fairly...

He then promised wages to anyone who works in that factory for him. Some workers sign up to work and get paid. Then the government comes and takes a percentage of their earnings and his profits, even though all the earnings/profits were made legitimately
Ok.

(the workers are there voluntarily, and the owner owns the factory).
:confused: (Just as an aside; I'm not sure you really know anything about Marxism, based off some of the things you say. ... and I'm not even a Marxist, per se.)

My question is, given this situation, why isn't taxation theft?
It is theft; every bit as much of theft as capitalism is.


Why is the state entitled to any money at all in this scenario?

It's not. The capitalist state is entitled to nothing.



Thanks for your replies.

Thanks for the question :thumbup1:



I agree with you, but what would you say to a libertarian who said, "The abolition of private property is coercive as well, since you're stopping me from privately owning whatever the thing is."

I would simply say, "thinking coercion is bad in all circumstances is idealist to the nth degree. Simply put, murderers and rapists must be coerced against, as must a guy who stands in a library and screams at the top of his lungs until he pases out. Limited amounts of coercion directed at certain things is necessary for the smooth functioning of society.
Even for ancaps they will coerce against tresspassers. You tell me who a tresspasser aggresses against, and I will tell you that you're presupposing a right to landed property)


Also, doesn't the problem of primitive accumulation confront collectives as well? If we assume that all of the world's resources were originally unowned, it seems that they have to be claimed/appropriated regardless of whether we're talking about a libertarian society or an egalitarian one. If it's illegitimate for an individual to claim property for himself, why is it ok for a collective to do so?

It's not legitimate. Nobody "claims" any "property" at all, period. Public collectives protect against property, they don't establish it.


If this is so obvious then maybe you can tell me why. I'm not saying that private property is not coercive and exploitative, but if we on the left are to be taken seriously, we need to give reasons for statements like this.



Again, this is the point that needs to be proved. In order to respond to the libertarian, we can't just say this; we have to say why it's so.

We have. As has Marx. You should know this, if you're "Mr Marxist." (I realize that sounds for more antagonistic than I mean it to. I apologize if it seems to question your integrity, as I don't mean it to.)

PP attempts to make the property "owner" sole arbiter over his "property" (in other words, make the holder of legal title sole arbiter over his possession) under the threat of violence for "theives" and "tresspassers" (in other words, people who see a different use for his possessions). It gives title holder legal ability to say "if you use this I will hit you" ie it is restrictive and coercive.

[Railyon]

If this is so obvious then maybe you can tell me why. I'm not saying that private property is not coercive and exploitative, but if we on the left are to be taken seriously, we need to give reasons for statements like this.

Depends on how in-depth you want to get.

You can go from "because it subjugates all to capital" to ranting about exclusion to marxist concepts like surplus value extraction, Industrial Reserve Army and the source of crises in capitalism. Bonus points for hammering home the internal contradictions of the system, like classes and class struggle. It depends on the audience really. Or are you asking us to explain it to you why we think capitalism should be abolished? :confused: In that case I might have misunderstood you then.