Initiation Of Force [Archive]

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 15:19

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 15:25

On the same note, another question for those same capitalists:

So, why is this "initiation of force" thing actually bad?

It is self-evident. That is why it is called an axiom. If someone works hard and receives something physical in return for that work, that physical object is the property of the person. To take it away forcibly, as communists would, is to enslave the person.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 15:26

Before you attack freedom you should at least provide a logical argument. When Ruth rented the house she voluntarily signed a contract which she hopefully read. If the contract stated the conditions by which she may be removed and those conditions included change of ownership, then she knew what she was getting into. If the contract stated that she has an absolute right to stay in the property for a certain period of time and that time was not yet expired, then it is her right to stay. When the original owner sells the property, he/she sells all the contracts associated with it too, and the contract of sale would state that all contracts associated with the property must be disclosed.

Saying Ruth is not the one engaging in force is the same as saying that if someone comes and camps in your front yard or breaks into your house and sets up a mattress on the living room floor, you can't use force to remove them.

I am sorry. you appear not to have read the last part of my post when I said answers were not to simply be bullshitting.

The fact you think my argument is an attack on freedom simply shows your conception of freedom to be perverted. That you can in all seriousness claim that Ruth simply remaining in her home is an act of violence and that the property developers right to make her homeless trumps her right to a home shows you to have a rather empty conception of freedom indeed.

Kami

13th June 2008, 15:29

To take it away forcibly, as communists would, is to enslave the person.
Really, where are you gettin this? We don't want to take your possessions. We want to sieze the means of production.
I assume that being forced to work in exchange for a wage that we might live isn't slavery in your books either?

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 15:30

It is self-evident. That is why it is called an axiom. If someone works hard and receives something physical in return for that work, that physical object is the property of the person. To take it away forcibly, as communists would, is to enslave the person.

If it is self-evident how come he does not see it as the case?

Furthermore if to take away somebody's property is to make a slave put of them, did Lincoln's emancipation proclamation make slaves out of the southern slave owners?

Baconator is so right wing that he thinks it did, are you willing to go that far?

pusher robot

13th June 2008, 15:31

Now any sane person would see this as the property developer initiating force as he is the one who committed the (only) act of violence.

No they wouldn't, obviously, because this is not controversial for most people. If your definition of sanity is such that everyone else is insane except you...well, you may have a problem.

See, most sane people are capable of abstracting principles into ethical rules, and then applying those rules to different situations, and it has long been a hallmark of civilization that rules are applied at least somewhat consistently, e.g., the "rule of law."

So in this case, we have a person who refuses to leave when asked civilly by the owner. Their physical occupation against the wishes of the property owner is a theft against the owner. Theft is obviously a use of force, and one we are capable of generalizing as "bad."

pusher robot

13th June 2008, 15:36

Really, where are you gettin this? We don't want to take your possessions. We want to sieze the means of production.
I assume that being forced to work in exchange for a wage that we might live isn't slavery in your books either?

Everything is or can be a means of production.

Furthermore if to take away somebody's property is to make a slave put of them, did Lincoln's emancipation proclamation make slaves out of the southern slave owners?

Baconator is so right wing that he thinks it did, are you willing to go that far?
Demo, I respect you, don't resort to these cheap attacks. You more than others ought to realize the wrong-headedness of trying to ascribe beliefs to people that they clearly don't hold simply because you want them to or think they should.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 15:37

No they wouldn't, obviously, because this is not controversial for most people. If your definition of sanity is such that everyone else is insane except you...well, you may have a problem.

See, most sane people are capable of abstracting principles into ethical rules, and then applying those rules to different situations, and it has long been a hallmark of civilization that rules are applied at least somewhat consistently, e.g., the "rule of law."

So in this case, we have a person who refuses to leave when asked civilly by the owner. Their physical occupation against the wishes of the property owner is a theft against the owner. Theft is obviously a use of force, and one we are capable of generalizing as "bad."

Well in fact the vast majority of people would agree with me. Indeed the majority of capitalists agree with me too, that is why even in the majority of capitalist countries to simply throw Ruth out in such a situation would be illegal. Here a property owner would have to give at least three months notice followed by long court proceedings that might even go in her favour to force her out. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of the population would wish to change the law so that she could be thrown out at will.

The fact that you call it theft does not make it so. I would call it theft that the property owner claims to own something that is sued by somebody else. Other than the fact that state violence backs the property owner, what makes you right and me wrong?

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 16:02

Demo, I respect you, don't resort to these cheap attacks. You more than others ought to realize the wrong-headedness of trying to ascribe beliefs to people that they clearly don't hold simply because you want them to or think they should.
I didn't say that is what anyone (besides Baconator) believes, rather that it is the reducto ad absurdum of the Libertarian position. Extreme Libertarians bite the bullet and openly support slavery. Most are not willing to go that far however.

pusher robot

13th June 2008, 16:07

I didn't say that is what anyone (besides Baconator) believes, rather that it is the reducto ad absurdum of the Libertarian position. Extreme Libertarians bite the bullet and openly support slavery. Most are not willing to go that far however.

That's absurd. Taking slave property from slave owners was not wrong because the force was initiated by the enslavers, unless you're peddling the crackpot racist theory that blacks voluntarily sold themselves into slavery.

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 16:07

I am sorry. you appear not to have read the last part of my post when I said answers were not to simply be bullshitting.

The fact you think my argument is an attack on freedom simply shows your conception of freedom to be perverted. That you can in all seriousness claim that Ruth simply remaining in her home is an act of violence and that the property developers right to make her homeless trumps her right to a home shows you to have a rather empty conception of freedom indeed.

It is not an act of violence, rather it is an act of force. If you are walking to work and I stand in your way, then when you try and walk around me I stand in your way again, I am not being 'violent' but I am engaging in an act of force.

A world of moral human beings will never be achieved from top-down central planning. If you treat someone like a child all their life they will act as such and never achieve a sense of their own morality. The mind only exists on an individual level. We all have unique ideas, even within our own ideologies. Humans do need other humans but that does not mean one particular group of humans can suddenly justify themselves as the central planners and engage in forceful acts.

As a libertarian I am not against socialism. What I am against is coercive socialism. When you force someone to act in a way that you believe is moral then you deny them the opportunity to be moral themselves.

Really, where are you gettin this? We don't want to take your possessions. We want to sieze the means of production.
I assume that being forced to work in exchange for a wage that we might live isn't slavery in your books either?

What if the possession you earnt just happens to be the means of production?

So you claim that we are enslaved by our own bodies need for nourishment? Is that the whole basis of the communist invention of 'wage slavery'? If it were the case that we are enslaved by our own body's need for nourishment then how does central planning and coercive socialism change that? If a person is guaranteed nourishment as a right and therefore, in your book, not enslaved, then does somebody else not have to be enslaved to provide the nourishment? Acting collectively does not change the need for nourishment. Therefore, if you consider that slavery, then we will be enslaved no matter the situation.

If it is self-evident how come he does not see it as the case?

A person with defect of sight cannot see evidence.

Furthermore if to take away somebody's property is to make a slave put of them, did Lincoln's emancipation proclamation make slaves out of the southern slave owners?

Baconator is so right wing that he thinks it did, are you willing to go that far?

African slaves were never the property of anyone. A slave is not a human being that is property and has an owner, a slave is a person who has had his inherent right to liberty infringed upon.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 16:26

That's absurd. Taking slave property from slave owners was not wrong because the force was initiated by the enslavers, unless you're peddling the crackpot racist theory that blacks voluntarily sold themselves into slavery.

The problem is that the United States banned the international slave trade in 1808. Thereafter all new slaves in the United States were born into slavery. Under the terms of the non-aggression principle (which is really about maintaining the status quo), aggression was not committed against these new slaves, as slavery was simply the status quo, any attempt by a slave to break free would in fact by the initiation of force. As there were few imported slaves left by the time of the emancipation proclamation, the vast majority of freed slaves were those slaves who had not been taken by force.

Now there are two ways out of the position. You could say that these slaves were still the children or Grandchildren or whatever of forcibly taken slaves and that meant it was not acceptable to hold them. That's fine, but it also means that no land in America is held legitimately because it can be traced back to force against native Americans.

The other option is to say that humans plain and simple cannot be owned and slavery was property not backed with legitimate rights. The trouble with this is that it attempts to place extra restrictions on property through a modern perspective that has not been accepted historically. I obviously agree that humans cannot be property but I am immediately going to follow that concession by claiming that land cannot be property either. Some capitalists, such as Georgists will agree with me there too, but I will once again make the demand of them why I should consider capital to be legitimate property.

The trouble is that your property is what is legally recognised as such. Slaves were recognised as property and therefore their emancipation was violation of property rights. Virtually nobody thinks it was wrong to violate these property rights, however you are going to have to explain how it is acceptable to violate some rights when property is apparently sacrosanct.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 16:31

It is not an act of violence, rather it is an act of force. If you are walking to work and I stand in your way, then when you try and walk around me I stand in your way again, I am not being 'violent' but I am engaging in an act of force.

A world of moral human beings will never be achieved from top-down central planning. If you treat someone like a child all their life they will act as such and never achieve a sense of their own morality. The mind only exists on an individual level. We all have unique ideas, even within our own ideologies. Humans do need other humans but that does not mean one particular group of humans can suddenly justify themselves as the central planners and engage in forceful acts.

As a libertarian I am not against socialism. What I am against is coercive socialism. When you force someone to act in a way that you believe is moral then you deny them the opportunity to be moral themselves.

Where did I say I favoured central planning?

African slaves were never the property of anyone. A slave is not a human being that is property and has an owner, a slave is a person who has had his inherent right to liberty infringed upon.
Of course they were property. They were legally recognised as such which is the definition of property.

What was their intrinsic right to liberty? Where did it come from? You cannot just claim it exists because it suits you. The slave owners honestly believed that they had an intrinsic right to own slaves. What can you say to defeat their argument of self-evident rights that cannot be used to defeat your argument?

Kwisatz Haderach

13th June 2008, 16:33

If those same capitalists would initiate force while claiming others don't have that right I'm sure they would see nothing bad about it. Thats not representative of the NAP. But the IoF is bad because there is no option to be good. If I said rape was moral ( good) that means the opposite , not rape, is immoral or (bad).
Fallacy of the excluded middle. IoF may not necessarily be either good or bad in itself. It can be amoral. We do not have to choose between an ethical view in which it is imperative to avoid IoF (yours) and an ethical view in which it is imperative to commit IoF (the straw man you argued against).

When you force someone to act in a way that you believe is moral then you deny them the opportunity to be moral themselves.
Why is that bad? You seem to be starting off from the unexplained premise that choice is, in itself, good, even if it enables people to choose to do evil things. Explain why.

In my view, morality requires that we maximize the number of good actions performed by people. Whether they freely choose to perform those good actions is irrelevant.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 16:34

Baconator

13th June 2008, 16:34

I didn't say that is what anyone (besides Baconator) believes, rather that it is the reducto ad absurdum of the Libertarian position. Extreme Libertarians bite the bullet and openly support slavery. Most are not willing to go that far however.

This is a total butchering and misconstruing of my criticism of Northern Aggression. Completely ludicrous. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking would know that Lincoln himself was a racist and he was perfectly open to deporting blacks to Africa. The North used the issue of Southern slavery ( which wasn't everywhere as there were more free blacks then in the South than in the North) as a moral justification to butcher the South. The North propagated slavery as the issue but it certainly wasn't nearly as important to the North as the status of Southern representation in the Federal government and the import/export trade conditions in the Southern states.

Slavery elsewhere was eliminated without war during the time by and large because of its productive inferiority and liberal ideas spreading. Lysander Spooner is one of my greatest intellectual inspirations and he was a radical abolitionist but also opposed to Northern Aggression. The Cherokee Indians were also opposed to Northern Aggression.

It is perfectly rational to criticize the Northern Aggression without lending any support to slavery. To imply that if one criticizes the North they are automatically pro-slavery is the same as saying anyone who criticizes Israel or Zionism is automatically an 'anti-Semite.' I'm sure you understand.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 16:47

This is a total butchering and misconstruing of my criticism of Northern Aggression. Completely ludicrous. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking would know that Lincoln himself was a racist and he was perfectly open to deporting blacks to Africa. The North used the issue of Southern slavery ( which wasn't everywhere as there were more free blacks then in the South than in the North) as a moral justification to butcher the South. The North propagated slavery as the issue but it certainly wasn't nearly as important to the North as the status of Southern representation in the Federal government and the import/export trade conditions in the Southern states.

Slavery elsewhere was eliminated without war during the time by and large because of its productive inferiority and liberal ideas spreading. Lysander Spooner is one of my greatest intellectual inspirations and he was a radical abolitionist but also opposed to Northern Aggression. The Cherokee Indians were also opposed to Northern Aggression.

It is perfectly rational to criticize the Northern Aggression without lending any support to slavery. To imply that if one criticizes the North they are automatically pro-slavery is the same as saying anyone who criticizes Israel or Zionism is automatically an 'anti-Semite.' I'm sure you understand.

Hardly. Lincoln's racism is irrelevant to this discussion. What mattered was the legal force of the proclamation (it is the same principle as the fact that the abolition of the Death Penalty in West Germany was pushed by very right-wing politicians does not change the fact that the abolition was an unequivocably good thing).

Sure the civil war was about far more than slavery, but are you honestly saying that it was all about Northern Aggression? That is appalling neo-Confederalism. An argument pretty much used exclusively by a certain demographic.

Baconator

13th June 2008, 17:18

Hardly. Lincoln's racism is irrelevant to this discussion. What mattered was the legal force of the proclamation (it is the same principle as the fact that the abolition of the Death Penalty in West Germany was pushed by very right-wing politicians does not change the fact that the abolition was an unequivocably good thing).

Sure the civil war was about far more than slavery, but are you honestly saying that it was all about Northern Aggression? That is appalling neo-Confederalism. An argument pretty much used exclusively by a certain demographic.

Lincoln at one point was ready to wheel and deal and deport the blacks to Africa ( such a colony as Liberia was started too). What does the Death Penalty have to do with this discussion? How are state slaughterhouses relevant here? The abolition of such a thing negates the fact that state institutionalized it before hand. Just as the United States allowed slavery to be institutionalized upon its inception. The U.S. government also allowed for the institutionalizing of segregation and then institutionalized integration after the it so 'heroically' abolished slavery. In reality, degradation of blacks was still supported by the U.S. and state government ( and very much so in the North unofficially. Blacks would be discriminated in the North and the governments would usually turn a blind eye). What I'm saying is that governments are the reason these practices were 'legal' in the first place.

I criticize the South as it was also a coercive government but I have no misconceptions about the North as being the 'good guy.' To criticize the Northern Aggression isn't to be a 'neo-Confederate' ( I am not calling for the reemergence of the CSA LOL) or pro-slavery its just being more objective than the narrative that Lincoln was a great guy and the North was 'good.' I am rather shocked you don't see the correlation between this and criticizing Israel and getting a nice 'anti-Semite' tag put on you.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 17:29

Lincoln at one point was ready to wheel and deal and deport the blacks to Africa ( such a colony as Liberia was started too). What does the Death Penalty have to do with this discussion? How are state slaughterhouses relevant here? The abolition of such a thing negates the fact that state institutionalized it before hand. Just as the United States allowed slavery to be institutionalized upon its inception. The U.S. government also allowed for the institutionalizing of segregation and then institutionalized integration after the it so 'heroically' abolished slavery. In reality, degradation of blacks was still supported by the U.S. and state government ( and very much so in the North unofficially. Blacks would be discriminated in the North and the governments would usually turn a blind eye). What I'm saying is that governments are the reason these practices were 'legal' in the first place.

I criticize the South as it was also a coercive government but I have no misconceptions about the North as being the 'good guy.' To criticize the Northern Aggression isn't to be a 'neo-Confederate' ( I am not calling for the reemergence of the CSA LOL) or pro-slavery its just being more objective than the narrative that Lincoln was a great guy and the North was 'good.' I am rather shocked you don't see the correlation between this and criticizing Israel and getting a nice 'anti-Semite' tag put on you.
The death penalty analogy was that despite those pushing for its removal hardly being good people the abolition was still a good thing. By the same token the abolition of slavery was a good thing regardless of Lincoln's failings.

You cannot get away with playing the silly game of saying that slavery or segregation were only possible because of the Government. Of course the Government helped enforce these things. The Government exists to serve the ruling classes, however given it was the property owners who wanted slavery and the property owners who wanted segregation, your notion that giving all power to property owners would somehow get rid of these things is a touch flawed.

And your rhetoric about the confederacy is absurd. You have claimed that the confederate generals were champions of liberty. That is hardly taking an objective view.

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 18:38

Where did I say I favoured central planning?

Well if people don't have private property rights then how do you decide who gets what property? My grandfather immigrated to Australia with nothing, but he worked hard as a humble shoe salesman and when he died he owned quite a bit of property, including properties he rented to commercial organisations engaging in production. If he has no right to that property then who gets to own it? Who decides who gets to use it? You? Democracy? What?

Of course they were property. They were legally recognised as such which is the definition of property.

What was their intrinsic right to liberty? Where did it come from? You cannot just claim it exists because it suits you. The slave owners honestly believed that they had an intrinsic right to own slaves. What can you say to defeat their argument of self-evident rights that cannot be used to defeat your argument?

All morality arises from a set of axioms. My observation that humans are unique and beautiful individuals with different talents tells me that they should be free.

What you have to realize is that the communist idea that rights are nothing more than societal constructs is contradictory to your own push for change. If rights are merely societal constructs then why would you want to change them at any point in time? Where does your drive come from to change the current set of societal constructs (for example slavery in the 19th century) to another set of societal constructs? Why is one better than the other?

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 18:54

Why is that bad? You seem to be starting off from the unexplained premise that choice is, in itself, good, even if it enables people to choose to do evil things. Explain why.

You have two choices. Either people control their own lives or their lives are controlled by someone else. Force can only be applied from one human to another. Force cannot be applied through some magical force that is guaranteed to be perfect. The other point is that using force to achieve moral actions is immoral in itself. If people are controlled though the force of government then they do not have the opportunity to exercise their mind. They become Orwellian zombies. For example I have always been passionate about animal rights, but I do not desire a situation where people are only not engaging in animal cruelty through force of government, I want to convince them through argument and allow their morality to organically develop from within their heart and soul. That is beautiful to me. Having a world without animal cruelty would not mean much to me if people were not free.

In my view, morality requires that we maximize the number of good actions performed by people. Whether they freely choose to perform those good actions is irrelevant.

So if the African slaves in the United States were building hospitals for the poor, you would be all for that? A situation where people have enough food and shelter with no war MEANS NOTHING if it is maintained through force. If we all gave up our liberty and locked ourselves away, sure we would be safe, but life is not about just being alive, it is about actually living and making decisions and discovering what is moral. That is freedom.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 19:11

Well if people don't have private property rights then how do you decide who gets what property? My grandfather immigrated to Australia with nothing, but he worked hard as a humble shoe salesman and when he died he owned quite a bit of property, including properties he rented to commercial organisations engaging in production. If he has no right to that property then who gets to own it? Who decides who gets to use it? You? Democracy? What?

Democratic decision making. But not everything needs planned. Those who use a certain set of resources can legitimately claim exclusive use-rights providing there is no obvious better alternative. What is not legitimate is to claim that resources exclusively belong to any one person and that he or she has the right to the proceeds of working these resources even if he or she plays no part in the work.

All morality arises from a set of axioms. My observation that humans are unique and beautiful individuals with different talents tells me that they should be free.

What you have to realize is that the communist idea that rights are nothing more than societal constructs is contradictory to your own push for change. If rights are merely societal constructs then why would you want to change them at any point in time? Where does your drive come from to change the current set of societal constructs (for example slavery in the 19th century) to another set of societal constructs? Why is one better than the other?
I want change because it suits human happiness to change. There is no great metaphysical rule saying that we have to do this, that or the next thing. The notion of there being intrinsic rights is just saying "this is what I think and you are not allowed to disagree with me". If intrinsic rights exist independently of social constructs, can you tell me where they are located, what their chemical composition is?

You claim you think people should be free and you also claim property rights are inviable. The two spectacularly contradict one another of course. You are willing to sacrifice property rights to a degree in order to oppose slavery, why not sacrifice them further for greater freedom-ensuring that nobody starves or goes without education?

You will say no because that goes against your notion of freedom (effectively freedom only for those who can afford it. What gives you the authority to dictate to everyone else what freedom is? Do you have a hotline to God?

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 19:12

And here's another one. Under English feudal law, all land in England (and latterly Wales) was property of the English Crown. The king could give (and take away) rights to parts of the country to the nobility in return for tithe. The nobility would then give land to their knights who would then allow the peasants to use it and so forth.

Under what can only be described as a quite substantial degree of coercion, the Crown was forced to give up this right and renounce their property rights to all the land and hence capitalism was able to form.

As capitalism in England and Wales was built entirely upon violating the King's property rights, does that mean the formation of capitalism was illegitimate?

Now your getting into some good stuff :lol: ... yes, this argument is related to what constitutes property (who owns what), not whether property should exist at all. This is where things get interesting.

Regarding the point about capitalism being illegitimate, capitalism was never 'formed', it is simply a word used to describe a situation of where people own property and exchange it though mutual contract. It does not address the question of what constitutes property for a person.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 19:34

Now your getting into some good stuff :lol: ... yes, this argument is related to what constitutes property (who owns what), not whether property should exist at all. This is where things get interesting.

Regarding the point about capitalism being illegitimate, capitalism was never 'formed', it is simply a word used to describe a situation of where people own property and exchange it though mutual contract. It does not address the question of what constitutes property for a person.

Of course capitalism was formed, it has not always existed. It came out of feudalism. Capitalism is be definition a system based upon the ownership of capital be certain people, hence its name. You cannot redefine it to suit yourself.

Anyway capitalism does not address any question at all. It is an economic system, not a set of thinking. People think, economic systems don't. If you believe property is legitimate, you are going to have to give a good reason why, "because I say so" is not cutting it.

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 19:47

Democratic decision making. But not everything needs planned. Those who use a certain set of resources can legitimately claim exclusive use-rights providing there is no obvious better alternative. What is not legitimate is to claim that resources exclusively belong to any one person and that he or she has the right to the proceeds of working these resources even if he or she plays no part in the work.

You implied in your previous post that you do not support central planning and yet when I ask you who should control things then, you throw democracy at me, the last refuge of the socialist. Democracy is central planning my friend. Who decides about 'obvious better alternatives'? Who decides what is a 'legitimate claim'? And what about my grandfather? As I said, he came to Australia with nothing and worked hard. When he died he owned quite a few properties used for production purposes? Who are you to take that away from him? How do you know he does not give his profits to feed the homeless?

I want change because it suits human happiness to change. There is no great metaphysical rule saying that we have to do this, that or the next thing. The notion of there being intrinsic rights is just saying "this is what I think and you are not allowed to disagree with me". If intrinsic rights exist independently of social constructs, can you tell me where they are located, what their chemical composition is?

Can you not see your own hypocrisy here? First you said you want change for human happiness. Then you attack inalienable rights by saying "can you tell me where they are located, what their chemical composition is?"

CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE HAPPINESS IS LOCATED? WHAT ITS COMPOSITION IS?

You claim you think people should be free and you also claim property rights are inviable. The two spectacularly contradict one another of course. You are willing to sacrifice property rights to a degree in order to oppose slavery, why not sacrifice them further for greater freedom-ensuring that nobody starves or goes without education?

It is logically impossible to include humans as potential property as part of the ideology of property rights. Property rights exist only as inalienable rights belonging to humans. If humans are included as potential property then property rights cannot exist. Your materialism is clouding your judgement here.

You will say no because that goes against your notion of freedom (effectively freedom only for those who can afford it. What gives you the authority to dictate to everyone else what freedom is? Do you have a hotline to God?

Freedom does not prevent one from acting charitably. I give money to several animal welfare charities and I also give to human charities. Luckily I have awoken from the Orwellian socialist zombie that I was and I recognise that I must take individual responsibility for the suffering that occurs in the world. I should work hard and give as much as I can to people who need it but i shouldn't engage in theft in order to give. I have my own sense of morality and I feel truly free in my mind.

Curlz31

13th June 2008, 20:03

Of course capitalism was formed, it has not always existed. It came out of feudalism. Capitalism is be definition a system based upon the ownership of capital be certain people, hence its name. You cannot redefine it to suit yourself.

Life does not grow from words. Words grow from life. Stop living through semantics. When you live on semantics you live in the box of the dictionary.

Anyway capitalism does not address any question at all. It is an economic system, not a set of thinking. People think, economic systems don't. If you believe property is legitimate, you are going to have to give a good reason why, "because I say so" is not cutting it.

I'm not even interested in capitalism. It is just a word. Property is legitimate because it is complimentary to the uniqueness and sovereignty of individual human beings. Property is always controlled by somebody, no matter what the situation, I simply propose that it be controlled by its owner, the person who received it in a free exchange for his own hard-earned property.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 20:11

You implied in your previous post that you do not support central planning and yet when I ask you who should control things then, you throw democracy at me, the last refuge of the socialist. Democracy is central planning my friend. Who decides about 'obvious better alternatives'? Who decides what is a 'legitimate claim'? And what about my grandfather? As I said, he came to Australia with nothing and worked hard. When he died he owned quite a few properties used for production purposes? Who are you to take that away from him? How do you know he does not give his profits to feed the homeless?

Well if you want to argue that property should never be forcibly removed from people, you might want to start thinking about giving any land you might own back to the aboriginal people.

Can you not see your own hypocrisy here? First you said you want change for human happiness. Then you attack inalienable rights by saying "can you tell me where they are located, what their chemical composition is?"

CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE HAPPINESS IS LOCATED? WHAT ITS COMPOSITION IS?

Yes, you can look up the chemical composition of endorphines quite easily.

It is logically impossible to include humans as potential property as part of the ideology of property rights. Property rights exist only as inalienable rights belonging to humans. If humans are included as potential property then property rights cannot exist. Your materialism is clouding your judgement here.
We have been told repeatedly by the right wingers here that humans are in fact property (self ownership and all that jazz).

You must give us a legitimate argument for property here. Telling us that they are "inalienable rights" is simply saying "because I say so". I say quite clearly that they are not inalienable rights and will not accept otherwise without considerable evidence. Such evidence does not seem to be forthcoming.

Freedom does not prevent one from acting charitably. I give money to several animal welfare charities and I also give to human charities. Luckily I have awoken from the Orwellian socialist zombie that I was and I recognise that I must take individual responsibility for the suffering that occurs in the world. I should work hard and give as much as I can to people who need it but i shouldn't engage in theft in order to give. I have my own sense of morality and I feel truly free in my mind.I don't think income should be derived from theft either. That is why I oppose private rent, interest, profit and so on. All forms of theft from society. I am not interested in hearing childish "taxation is theft" slogans without some justification though.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 20:16

Property is legitimate because it is complimentary to the uniqueness and sovereignty of individual human beings.
Leave the poetry to the poets

Property is always controlled by somebody, no matter what the situation, I simply propose that it be controlled by its owner, the person who received it in a free exchange for his own hard-earned property.
And what if such property has not come about through free exchange (every piece of property on earth in other words, every inch of land in Australia was initially acquired through genocide after all).

Why should society be a dictatorship ruled over by property owners? You have not explained why I should have to submit myself to the will of those richer than me? Why is my freedom not important?

Robert

13th June 2008, 21:39

I should have to submit myself to the will of those richer than me? Why is my freedom not important?

If I may butt in, this question really intrigues me. How is your freedom curtailed if I have more money than you? And is my freedom curtailed by TomK's relatively superior wealth?

What could you do in a socialist society that you can't do now? Or what is it you're currently forced to do that you'll no longer be forced to do after the revolution?

I promise I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 22:15

If I may butt in, this question really intrigues me. How is your freedom curtailed if I have more money than you? And is my freedom curtailed by TomK's relatively superior wealth?

What could you do in a socialist society that you can't do now? Or what is it you're currently forced to do that you'll no longer be forced to do after the revolution?

I promise I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.

My freedom is curtailed because my relative lack of wealth means I must work for others, providing them profit from my work and abiding by their will in order to earn a living. I must borrow money subjecting myself to extortionate terms with the bank.

It is not the fact that some people have more wealth than me that curtails my freedom, but rather the way they are able to use this wealth. I am not in the business of throwing vitriol against individuals. I will not begrudge any individual person for what they have, but I will sure as hell oppose a system that limits my autonomy and that of many others for the benefit of a few.

Robert

13th June 2008, 23:25

my relative lack of wealth means I must work for others
Well, I suppose that's true but you will surely be expected to work in any kind of society in order to obtain satisfaction of basic human wants. If you become the commune chairman or whatever we will call the enforcers of the new order, are you going to let me have a free house and free food after the revolution? Or shall I work?

If your complaint is that under the current system, some do not have to work at all to satisfy those same wants, I agree that it's "not fair," but this strikes me more as a fact of life than a political illness the cure of which will not be worse than the disease. My personal view is that progressive taxation already insures that the idle, ultra rich contribute something.

I will sure as hell oppose a system that limits my autonomy and that of many others for the benefit of a few. When you say it this way, no fair-minded person can disagree. But we're back to arguing about what constitutes "autonomy" and just how entitled to it are you? What do you see as your reciprocal obligation to society in exchange for this autonomy? Anything you describe in response will likely sound like "work" to me.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 23:42

Well, I suppose that's true but you will surely be expected to work in any kind of society in order to obtain satisfaction of basic human wants. If you become the commune chairman or whatever we will call the enforcers of the new order, are you going to let me have a free house and free food after the revolution? Or shall I work?

If your complaint is that under the current system, some do not have to work at all to satisfy those same wants, I agree that it's "not fair," but this strikes me more as a fact of life than a political illness the cure of which will not be worse than the disease. My personal view is that progressive taxation already insures that the idle, ultra rich contribute something.

This is a misconception that often appears on this board, probably due to the teenagers here thinking that Communism will abolish work. I do not object to having to work per se, but rather to having to sell my labour. On the simplest level I have to work on somebody else's terms for their benefit. Now if it were the case that is what I wanted to do, then fine, but it isn't. It is just what I have to do. A change to a society where I have true freedom of association and can join any "firm" as an equal and take my fair share of the proceeds is obviously more desirable.

As for progressive taxation, well yes. But the problem with the idle rich is very often their wealth is mixed by the tax system because it isn't earned income. Progressive taxation is fine as far as it goes, but it only goes so far

When you say it this way, no fair-minded person can disagree. But we're back to arguing about what constitutes "autonomy" and just how entitled to it are you? What do you see as your reciprocal obligation to society in exchange for this autonomy? Anything you describe in response will likely sound like "work" to me.
Well obviously one has obligations to others. Those who cannot work for whatever reason should be provided for. Children should be educated and so forth. It is perfectly reasonable that some of the proceeds from my work go towards that, both for ethical reasons and also because I too have benefitted from things like education and may well need to be provided for in sickness or old age.

What is not acceptable to me is much of the proceeds of my work going to capitalists who I have had to work for or to banks for interest on loans I had to take or whatever else.

Robert

14th June 2008, 00:01

Demo, please stay with me for as long as you can stand it. Let's go here first:

I do not object to having to work per se, but rather to having to sell my labour.What's the difference? If you really, really want to be the next Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix, as I did till I realized it just wasn't to be, you will practice diligently, schlep around from one club to the other till some guy agrees to put you on the stage, etc. That's "work."

I think we agree on this. And you do have the right to live this way, right now, and you won't starve in the process, what with help from friends, charities, and public services.

On the simplest level I have to work on somebody else's terms for their benefit. Now if it were the case that is what I wanted to do, then fine, but it isn't.Well, what is it that you DO want to do? Specifically.

A change to a society where I have true freedom of association and can join any "firm" as an equal and take my fair share of the proceeds is obviously more desirable.Demo, surely you recognize that the devil is in defining what constitutes "fair share." Are you really sure that you aren't going to have the same problem under communism? What if you think you work more or more efficiently than I do, but society gives us equal benefits? Aren't you going to find that "unfair"? If so, to whom will you complain?

Demogorgon

14th June 2008, 00:14

What's the difference? If you really, really want to be the next Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix, as I did till I realized it just wasn't to be, you will practice diligently, schlep around from one club to the other till some guy agrees to put you on the stage, etc. That's "work."

I think we agree on this. And you do have the right to live this way, right now, and you won't starve in the process, what with help from friends, charities, and public services.It is not about being the next Jimmi Hendrix or whatever. It is about working in a "firm" where rather than selling your labour you have a democratic voice in running the workplace and take home your share of the proceeds. You still work as you do now, but you have a democratic voice and a greater income.

Demo, surely you recognize that the devil is in defining what constitutes "fair share." Are you really sure that you aren't going to have the same problem under communism? What if you think you work more or more efficiently than I do, but society gives us equal benefits? Aren't you going to find that "unfair"? If so, to whom will you complain?
Democratically of course. Voting on who gets what shares does not lead to a perfect outcome, but then again nothing does. It is however reasonable to say that when people allocate income democratically they tend to do so on a more equitable basis than when it is allocated on a top down basis.

Robert

14th June 2008, 00:24

Okay. Thanks for sharing your views.

Kwisatz Haderach

14th June 2008, 02:43

You have two choices. Either people control their own lives or their lives are controlled by someone else.
No. It is possible for people to control some aspects of their lives, while other aspects are controlled by someone else.

Libertarians love false dichotomies, it seems.

The other point is that using force to achieve moral actions is immoral in itself.
Why?

If people are controlled though the force of government then they do not have the opportunity to exercise their mind. They become Orwellian zombies.
Did you ever live in a totalitarian society? I did, and I can tell you that - surprisingly enough - government legislation does not have a magical ability to turn off your mind. The government can't really "control" people in the sense you imply. The government can punish you for doing X. It cannot physically stop you from doing X if you really want to.

You speak of "force" as if people could control each other's minds. They can't.

For example I have always been passionate about animal rights, but I do not desire a situation where people are only not engaging in animal cruelty through force of government, I want to convince them through argument and allow their morality to organically develop from within their heart and soul.
You are naive, and you will fail.

So if the African slaves in the United States were building hospitals for the poor, you would be all for that?
Of course not. I would rather there were no poor, and no slavery, in the first place. Is it possible to build hospitals for the poor without using slave labour? Yes. Then we are not justified in using slave labour to build hospitals for the poor.

A situation where people have enough food and shelter with no war MEANS NOTHING if it is maintained through force.
Sure it does. Have you ever been without food or shelter? You'd think differently if you knew what you were talking about. Touchy-feely philosophy doesn't mean crap if there's no food on the table, your stomach is empty, and your family is dying.

If we all gave up our liberty and locked ourselves away, sure we would be safe, but life is not about just being alive, it is about actually living and making decisions and discovering what is moral. That is freedom.
Take your "freedom" and shove it up your ass. I am not interested in it, neither are most people, and we are sick and tired of self-righteous libertarians telling us what we need or want.

Freedom does not prevent one from acting charitably.
Sure it does. In a capitalist economy, in order to increase your wealth, you must jealously guard the wealth you currently have, and invest it in profitable ventures. Any money you give away to charity is money not invested, money not used to make yourself richer. Someone who donates to charity has less money to invest, and therefore, less of a chance to get rich, than someone who does not donate to charity.

Not all rich people are selfish, greedy, sick bastards. But your chances of getting rich are maximized if you are a selfish, greedy, sick bastard. Therefore capitalism encourages people to become selfish, greedy, sick bastards, in order to increase their chances of getting rich.

I have my own sense of morality and I feel truly free in my mind.
So do I.

Kwisatz Haderach

14th June 2008, 02:48

If I may butt in, this question really intrigues me. How is your freedom curtailed if I have more money than you? And is my freedom curtailed by TomK's relatively superior wealth?
"LAND, n. A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Your property is a piece of the universe that I am not allowed to interact with. The greater your property, the greater the piece of the universe I am not allowed to interact with. Thus the greater your property, the less freedom I have to do what I want in the universe. If you owned the entire planet as your private property, I would effectively be your slave, since you would have control over the sources of my food and water.

Robert

14th June 2008, 05:14

Your property is a piece of the universe that I am not allowed to interact with. I confess to an aversion to the stereotypical owner (if he exists anymore) of the South American hacienda who rides around on a horse watching sick, illiterate peasants harvest agave nuts in the hot sun for his tequila distillery. To the extent he fails to reasonably share, somehow, the wealth of his land with the people, or give them an opportunity to work their way up, he's just asking for trouble and deserves it when it comes.

I don't think this stereotype is extant, or at least very visible, in the USA today. The average wage is now around $17/hour and unemployment is at 5.5%. And we're in a serious downturn if not recession. Public education is guaranteed through secondary school, job training and health care are widely available, even for the poor, despite the need for health care reform. There is far more social and economic mobility now than there was in earlier centuries.

I don't worry about anyone owning the entire planet. Can you imagine the property taxes?

RGacky3

14th June 2008, 06:18

An interesting aside that, I don't believe anyone has brought up, is that Capitalism requires the threat of force for it to exist, i.e. property laws, which amounts to privilage by threat of force, communism on the other hand, anarchist-communism, requires no threat of force, no matter how Capitalists like to word it "forced redistribution," its only forced in the sense that its taking away privilage by taking away the threat of force.

If the lady renting the apartment stays, she is not using force, because ultimately, the so-called owner had no inherent right to stop her from living there, his only right was the threat of force, she obviously chose to live there because she either had no were else to live for free, so she is forced to pay rent to a guy who claims ownership by threat of force. Ultimately the initiation of force concepts rests on the concept of property, and property can only exist with threat of force.

Robert

14th June 2008, 13:53

property can only exist with threat of force.

Agreed. But is this a bad thing? How do you discourage a rapist from crawling through your child's bedroom window at night without the threat of force? You and your family are entitled to some personal space that should be guaranteed against invasion.

RGacky3

15th June 2008, 01:55

Agreed. But is this a bad thing? How do you discourage a rapist from crawling through your child's bedroom window at night without the threat of force? You and your family are entitled to some personal space that should be guaranteed against invasion.

There is a huge, huge difference, between protecting yourself, or your family from a rapist, and protecting land or property that you lay claim to simply because of the fact that you lay claim to it and you can back it up with force. Personal Space is one thing, obviously any one invading your personal space is doing it with mal intent, property is another, when a few own all, that deprives many of all, which leaves the few to control the many, having your own family safe and peronsal space is'nt depriving anyone of anything justifiable (maybe your depriving them of raping our daughter, but raping your daughter is hardly justifyable.)

Tungsten

15th June 2008, 13:31

One of the most absurd arguments we see from the more authoritarian capitalists here is the intellectual fraud that is "initiation of force". The argument is really just a sleight of hand, using people's legitimate distaste for using force against one another to justify some very strange things indeed. For instance a non violent act against a capitalist can be described as force
No they can't.

whereas a violent act by a capitalist is held to be justifiable.
No it can't.

The following example illustrates the point:

Ruth rents a house from John. After a period of time however John goes bankrupt and his assets are sold off to meet his debts. The house that he rents to Ruth is bought up by a property developer. Once the time comes from Ruth to renew her contract the property developer refuses to have it renewed as he wishes to pull down the house to build something else and orders Ruth out of her home. Ruth has nowhere to go however and so remains in her home, the property developer has her forcibly evicted
She didn't own the house and had no right to it in the first place.

Now any sane person would see this as the property developer initiating force as he is the one who committed the (only) act of violence.

How? The house didn't belong to Ruth. If it did, then the property delevoper most definitely would be initiation force by throwing her out- no matter what the price was he offered.

However the right winger will tell us that Ruth was the one who committed the initiation of force be remaining in her home.
It's not her home. She was only renting it, and the contract presumably came to an end when John went bankrupt.

Furthermore if to take away somebody's property is to make a slave put of them, did Lincoln's emancipation proclamation make slaves out of the southern slave owners?
People can't justifiably be considered property, so no.

Here a property owner would have to give at least three months notice followed by long court proceedings that might even go in her favour to force her out. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of the population would wish to change the law so that she could be thrown out at will.
Argumentum ad populum.

The fact that you call it theft does not make it so. I would call it theft that the property owner claims to own something that is used by somebody else.
I hope you're never in a position where you have to hire a car.

---

So, why is this "initiation of force" thing actually bad?

You want someone explain to you why fraud, theft, rape and murder is "bad"?

:drool:

Sure it does. Have you ever been without food or shelter? You'd think differently if you knew what you were talking about.
Not really, I'd try to gain it legitimately at every opportunity. Unlike a communist, I don't use violence in lieu of work.

I am not interested in it, neither are most people, and we are sick and tired of self-righteous libertarians telling us what we need or want.
If being told what you need and want disgusts you, then you're going to be in for an unpleasant surprise when the revolution comes.

---

Really, where are you gettin this? We don't want to take your possessions. We want to sieze the means of production.
A privately owned means of production is a possession and nothing precludes a means of production being a possession.

I assume that being forced to work in exchange for a wage that we might live isn't slavery in your books either?
Another one who thinks that no one will have to work in a post-revolutionary world. Ten a penny.

---

The trouble is that your property is what is legally recognised as such. Slaves were recognised as property and therefore their emancipation was violation of property rights.
Their property rights were illegitimate, as they were gained by initiating force (as is your "I use it, therefore it's mine" nonsense). This is why no libertarian supports slavery and all you're attacking is a straw man.

You claim you think people should be free and you also claim property rights are inviable. The two spectacularly contradict one another of course.
Because nothing quite embodies the definition of freedom quite like some tosser robbing your house, does it?

Well if you want to argue that property should never be forcibly removed from people, you might want to start thinking about giving any land you might own back to the aboriginal people.
Which ones would those be? The ones that died over two hundred years ago? I you want to arrange a seance...

Why should society be a dictatorship ruled over by property owners? You have not explained why I should have to submit myself to the will of those richer than me?

Do you still beat your wife?

Why is my freedom not important?
Because the freedom to enslave is a contradiction in terms.

My freedom is curtailed because my relative lack of wealth means I must work for others, providing them profit from my work and abiding by their will in order to earn a living.
There's no metaphysical difference between working for "them" and working for "society". What they do with the products of your work afterwards isn't really isn't any of your business.

I will not begrudge any individual person for what they have, but I will sure as hell oppose a system that limits my autonomy and that of many others for the benefit of a few.
And how much autonomy do you think you're going to have when you're working to fill the bottomless pit of "each according to his needs"? You don't serously think work is going to be a choice do you?

---

An interesting aside that, I don't believe anyone has brought up, is that Capitalism requires the threat of force for it to exist, i.e. property laws, which amounts to privilage by threat of force, communism on the other hand, anarchist-communism, requires no threat of force, no matter how Capitalists like to word it "forced redistribution," its only forced in the sense that its taking away privilage by taking away the threat of force.
Wonderful. So I'm free to simply take whatever I want from whoever I want (with or without their consent) without fear of some evil capitalist forcing his equally evil property laws on me. I guess the same goes for rape too- a unfair privelage women have by threat of force from capitalists.

You're right. Communism is going to be a real hoot!

There is a huge, huge difference, between protecting yourself, or your family from a rapist, and protecting land or property that you lay claim to simply because of the fact that you lay claim to it and you can back it up with force.
No there isn't a huge difference. Your property is the product of your labour. The man who takes your property without your consent is consequently taking your labour without your consent and is indirectly enslaving you. Are we not to defend ourselves from those trying to enslave us?

Personal Space is one thing, obviously any one invading your personal space is doing it with mal intent, property is another, when a few own all, that deprives many of all, which leaves the few to control the many,
And this is what makes your argument so utterly mendacious. Property is owned by 99.9999% of people, not "the few". Hell, even the homeless and destiture own their own carboard boxes.

You describe a situation that doesn't exist outside your imagination.

Demogorgon

15th June 2008, 15:18

I have no interest in debating our resident fascist, whose continuing presence here is a mystery to me given Revleft's normally trigger happy attitude to such things, however this I cannot resist

Which ones would those be? The ones that died over two hundred years ago? I you want to arrange a seance...

So them being dead means it is alright? Does that mean I can legitmately take your property so long as I kill you in the process?

Robert

15th June 2008, 15:21

For the record, what I meant with the rape example is that you can't exclude the rapist from your child's bedroom without some concept of "property," however crude.

Tungsten, we have to recognize that some, indeed much property is simply inherited, not earned, in the USA and Britain. It gets taxed here in the states as a function of its value. You pay more in property tax for your million dollar mansion than I do for my $25,000 shack. I support this principle. Is it the same in the UK, property taxation I mean? Do you support progressive income and property taxation?

Tungsten's a fascist?

Kwisatz Haderach

15th June 2008, 16:51

You want someone explain to you why fraud, theft, rape and murder is "bad"?
I want you to explain to me why fraud and theft are always bad, yes. I can see why murder and rape are bad. I can't see why fraud or theft are bad a priori.

Besides, you're pretending that anyone who thinks that 4 specific instances of initiation of force are bad must therefore also believe that all initiation of force is always bad. That's bullshit.

A privately owned means of production is a possession and nothing precludes a means of production being a possession.
You're right... but since a possession is something you are either currently using or currently carrying on your person, a means of production can only be a possession if you either (a) use it all the time, or (b) carry it around with you. You can't do either of those things with a factory.

Some small means of production can indeed be possessions. But large, immobile ones can't.

Their property rights were illegitimate, as they were gained by initiating force...
Ok, so if I can prove that something you own was gained by initiating force at some point in its history, can I take it away from you and give it back to the heirs of the rightful owner?

Cool. Prepare to evacuate most of North America. And large tracts of land in Europe, for that matter. We have to give Silesia and East Prussia back to the Germans, after all. And most land in Russia back to the heirs of the Romanov family, and most land in France back to the Bourbons. The Pope also needs to get a large piece of land in central Italy, and the Turks can have the Balkans back.

RGacky3

15th June 2008, 17:22

And this is what makes your argument so utterly mendacious. Property is owned by 99.9999% of people, not "the few". Hell, even the homeless and destiture own their own carboard boxes.

You describe a situation that doesn't exist outside your imagination.

Look at Statistics, 10% own well over 90% of the worlds resources, most people don't 'own' their own home, most people don't 'own' their own work, most people don't own anything really. btw, if your talking about a toothbrush and underwear, then yeah, but thats not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about 'Property', as in Land, Capital, Resources, not personal possesions.

No there isn't a huge difference. Your property is the product of your labour. The man who takes your property without your consent is consequently taking your labour without your consent and is indirectly enslaving you. Are we not to defend ourselves from those trying to enslave us?

Aha, from the hourses mouth "Your property is the product of your labor, thus he is taking your labor." EXACTLY, thats been the basis of communism the whole time, Capitalism, takes away workers labor, and gives it to the Capitalist, its theft. Property, in the vast vast vast majority of Cases is the product of other peoples labor, but the Capitalist steals it, how can they do that? Property laws, i.e. threat of force, i.e. EXTORTION. Look at the way Street Gangs work, parts of L.A. and I'm sure other cities, almost all the small businesses have to pay a street tax, protection money, why? Because the gangs claim owner ship to that turf, now wahts the difference between that, and legal ownership, other than one is sanctioned by the state?

Wonderful. So I'm free to simply take whatever I want from whoever I want (with or without their consent) without fear of some evil capitalist forcing his equally evil property laws on me. I guess the same goes for rape too- a unfair privelage women have by threat of force from capitalists.

You're right. Communism is going to be a real hoot!

Well, no, I never said that, You can take wahtever food you want, the clothes you want, sure, and why should'nt you? If your working your contributing to society. Rape is completely different, as I explained, protecting a woman's (or mans) body is clearly his own, theres little argument there, now a guy claiming ownership on some property that deprives others of something nessesary, and is'nt clearly his, is a completely different thing. If they are not to you? Then answer this, why would slavery be wrong? If property and humans are no different?

Communism may not be a hoot for the elite who own 90%, but for the rest of us, its giong to be great, hell it will even be good for the former elite, they'll have what they need, and they'll be albe to actually contribute for once.

She didn't own the house and had no right to it in the first place.

What right did the owner have to it? Other than a piece of paper backed up by cop guns? The owner could have never even seen the place.

People can't justifiably be considered property, so no.

Why not?

The only defence of property I've actually come across is the homestead principle, which is filled with so many holes and is ethically baseless, pretty much what it is, is a scraped up theory defending an already existing network, philisophically its as laughable as hobbs defence of monarchy, the same type of thing.

I wish Capitalists would just own up to it, man other ones have that I've talked to, this is the only honest conversation a Communist could have with a Capitalist.

Com: "Capitalism and property is unjust, wrong, and baseless, its exploitation based on violence and Capitalists have no right to their property because it was the workers that created it for them."

Cap: "Yeah i know huh, its great, I'm rich, so suck it."

Com: "Ohh, I see, you know its wrong but you just don't care, Ok."

Cap: "I got a yaht *****, on other peoples work, HAH, its great."

Robert

15th June 2008, 17:51

as laughable as hobbs defence of monarchy

<Hobbes>

Hey Gack, would you support me as king if I promised to abolish private property? Oh sure, I'd live in a nice, comfy castle and lie around the pool all day. But you'd never have to sell your labour to a capitalist again. There'd just be one privileged elitist instead of hordes of them as there are now. Wouldn't it be just a little bit better than it is now?

I see TomK has made a similar deal with the People in the next country over. What's that he's amassing on my border? Are those ... soldiers, TomK? Just exercising, I presume?

Tungsten

15th June 2008, 18:04

I have no interest in debating our resident fascist,

We have a comedian in our midst.

I'm a libertarian and a minarchist, comrade. My posts up until now should have made that clear. I don't recall ever saying anything to suggest that I advocated fascism. Hell, I don't think anyone here has ever sunk low enough called me a fascist until today.

whose continuing presence here is a mystery to me given Revleft's normally trigger happy attitude to such things, however this I cannot resist

Ah, but you have resisted- despite the lengthy rebuttal, you have ignored all but one comment, and even you reply to that is pitiful:

So them being dead means it is alright?
Yes, of course it does. Corpses have no right to property. Especially not ones 200 years old.

Does that mean I can legitmately take your property so long as I kill you in the process?
You're going to find that murdering someone does actually involve the initiation of force, which according to libertarian ethics, is not allowed.

These would be the same ethics you've spent this entire thread ridiculing. Think about it.

------

Tungsten, we have to recognize that some, indeed much property is simply inherited, not earned, in the USA and Britain. It gets taxed here in the states as a function of its value. You pay more in property tax for your million dollar mansion than I do for my $25,000 shack. I support this principle. Is it the same in the UK, property taxation I mean? Do you support progressive income and property taxation?
Perhaps. Inheritance is technically an income, so I suppose it's liable for income tax, which is perhaps the only real justfiable tax, if tax can be justified at all.

Tungsten's a fascist?
It's news to me.

---

I want you to explain to me why fraud and theft are always bad, yes. I can see why murder and rape are bad. I can't see why fraud or theft are bad a priori.
I'll bet you can see why oppression and exploitation are bad, even though fraud and theft are just forms of them.

Besides, you're pretending that anyone who thinks that 4 specific instances of initiation of force are bad must therefore also believe that all initiation of force is always bad. That's bullshit.
I'm not one of those, so I can't speak for them.

You're right... but since a possession is something you are either currently using or currently carrying on your person, a means of production can only be a possession if you either (a) use it all the time, or (b) carry it around with you. You can't do either of those things with a factory.

Some small means of production can indeed be possessions. But large, immobile ones can't.
Ugh, what a mess. I'm not currently using my car, is that not mine? Define "currently using". It's technically a means of production, just ask delivery drivers. What if it breaks down, is it not big and immobile? There are other potential means of production too- computers etc. I don't that carry that around with me, so will that go too?

Cool. Prepare to evacuate most of North America.
Evacuate them to where, exactly? It doesn't make sense to send someone "back" to a place they've never been before in their life. You wouldn't be sending them back, you'd just be sending them.

And who should we then give this land to? The "natives"? Not only does that smack of racism, (what gives them the right to it anymore that the immigrants? Any injustices commited were against their ancestors- not them. Back in those days, pretty much everyone was at it; the natives included.) Whose to say the so-called natives didn't previously take it from someone else?

Oh, and just one more thing: if I was half-cast white/american indian, do I only get half a share?

The rest of the examples are just more of the same. As with copyright laws, you can't hold property indefinitely. Once you're dead, your claim to it ceases.

Demogorgon

15th June 2008, 18:35

Hell, I don't think anyone here has ever sunk low enough called me a fascist until today.

I have called you one many times before. I believe in calling a spade a spade. Your particular brand of "Libertarianism" comes directly from the European fascist tradition (not Nazism though, I certainly am not calling you a Nazi) and you have made countless ultra-authoritarian comments here, so the term is
Corpses have no right to property. Especially not ones 200 years old.

You're going to find that murdering someone does actually involve the initiation of force, which according to libertarian ethics, is not allowed.

Suppose I do it though? And suppose I am not brought to justice for it? Will it be my legitimate property then. Probably not. What about the legitimate property of whoever I pass it onto? If not at which point does it become legitimate property. According to you, it will definitely be legitimate in two hundred years time. Probably a hundred years time too as you are excusing all land stolen from the Aboriginal peoples, not just the coastland. So at what point does it become legitimate? Thirty years? Fifty years?

Any injustices commited were against their ancestors- not them.
Does that mean, say, that the German Government's policy of confiscating any property proven to be stolen from Holocaust victims and returning it to the children or grandchildren of the victims is wrong?

Back in those days, pretty much everyone was at it; the natives included.) Whose to say the so-called natives didn't previously take it from someone else?
Does that mean that it is fair game for me to forcibly take anything that the current holder may well have taken themselves?

Tungsten

15th June 2008, 19:18

Look at Statistics, 10% own well over 90% of the worlds resources, most people don't 'own' their own home, most people don't 'own' their own work, most people don't own anything really.
And advocating communism will presumably allow me to own these things, will it? I'm sure I've dealt with these half-baked statistics before.

btw, if your talking about a toothbrush and underwear, then yeah, but thats not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about 'Property', as in Land, Capital, Resources, not personal possesions.
Not yet.

--------

Aha, from the hourses mouth "Your property is the product of your labor, thus he is taking your labor." EXACTLY, thats been the basis of communism the whole time,
Not quite. Communism advocates not only collective property (which is to say no property), but wealth redistribution regardless of work. That doesn't sound much like getting the products of your labour- it sound like giving them away.

Capitalism, takes away workers labor, and gives it to the Capitalist, its theft.
How many times have I been through this? They don't take it unless you're willing to give it, so no, it's not theft. Take away consensus and any kind of trade or exchange whatsoever can be called theft; what you're arguing is absurd.

Property, in the vast vast vast majority of Cases is the product of other peoples labor,
Only in the sense they've been paid to do it.

but the Capitalist steals it, how can they do that?
How does he steal it? Does he take money out of your bank account or pay you less than what you agreed to work for?

Property laws, i.e. threat of force, i.e. EXTORTION. Look at the way Street Gangs work, parts of L.A. and I'm sure other cities, almost all the small businesses have to pay a street tax, protection money, why?
Because the gangs claim owner ship to that turf, now wahts the difference between that, and legal ownership, other than one is sanctioned by the state?
-The capitalist isn't taking anything from you.
-Working for the capitalist is not compulsory.

Well, no, I never said that, You can take wahtever food you want, the clothes you want, sure, and why should'nt you?
Becuase someone somewhere is going to be forced to provide me with these things.

If your working your contributing to society.
And if I'm not working, it's starvation and homelessness?

So how is your society any different from the one you denounce?

Rape is completely different, as I explained, protecting a woman's (or mans) body is clearly his own, theres little argument there, now a guy claiming ownership on some property that deprives others of something nessesary, and is'nt clearly his, is a completely different thing.
So the ownership of property rests on the condition that someone else doesn't need it. Which creates a new problem- how is my body (and by extension, my labour) any different? If some one else is in need of my labour and I am compelled to give it, what does that make me, other than a glorified slave?

What right did the owner have to it?
Presumably, he paid for someone to build it, with money he got by working for someone.

Now, you've just said that he has no right to it: Why? If someone has no right to anything bought with their labour, what do they have the right to? That doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact, it sounds like the owner here is being used or should I say exploited.

Other than a piece of paper backed up by cop guns? The owner could have never even seen the place.
The owner can't have see his own property? :confused:

I thought we were all entitled to the fruits of our labour? Only when it suits those it need it would seem.

I wish Capitalists would just own up to it, man other ones have that I've talked to, this is the only honest conversation a Communist could have with a Capitalist.

Com: "Capitalism and property is unjust, wrong, and baseless, its exploitation based on violence and Capitalists have no right to their property because it was the workers that created it for them."

Cap: "Yeah i know huh, its great, I'm rich, so suck it."

Com: "Ohh, I see, you know its wrong but you just don't care, Ok."

Cap: "I got a yaht *****, on other peoples work, HAH, its great."

This doesn't sound much like the exchanges I've seen in this thread.

For starters, you don't think exploitation is wrong, as you've said that someone only owns the fruits of others labour only on the condition that someone else doesn't need them. And if someone is in need, theft (and therefore exploitation) becomes acceptable. Presumably, punishment awaits those who do not wish to give away their property, so now we've have dispelled the myth that there will be no violence involved. You're going to find it hard to claim that the recalcitrant is using violence against the needy by not giving away the fruits of his labour to someone who didn't create them.

Tungsten

15th June 2008, 19:53

I have called you one many times before. I believe in calling a spade a spade. Your particular brand of "Libertarianism" comes directly from the European fascist tradition
Becuase nothing says "Fascist" and "Authoritarian" quite like "Do what you like, providing you don't initiate the use of force against other people", does it?

(not Nazism though, I certainly am not calling you a Nazi)
The differences are few and largely insignificant.

and you have made countless ultra-authoritarian comments here, so the term is
I've made nothing of the sort. Of course, you probably see the defence of property rights as authoritarian, just as you probably see enslavement of non-needy to the needy as somehow bestowing freedom.

Suppose I do it though? And suppose I am not brought to justice for it? Will it be my legitimate property then.
No.

What about the legitimate property of whoever I pass it onto?
It makes no difference by that point.

According to you, it will definitely be legitimate in two hundred years time.
You're completely ignoring the context of the argument. The people that had their land stolen are dead. So are the people who stole it. Case closed. Morally reprehensible? Yes, just like witch burning, but no sane person says we ought to punish the decendents of the Spanish Inquisition whose ancestors "got away with it".

The whole notion of "inherited guilt" in itself smacks of religious lunacy and the whole "go back to your own country" thing smacks of racism.

If you can't appreciate the absurdity, picture being evicted from your house because the land it's on was supposedly taken from someone else hundreds of years ago. Or, if you want a more real-world example, go and visit Palestine.

It'll also give you a good idea of what that mindset leads to in practice, too

Does that mean, say, that the German Government's policy of confiscating any property proven to be stolen from Holocaust victims and returning it to the children or grandchildren of the victims is wrong?
Not really, as it's recent history and it can be proven to have been directly taken from particular individuals. Many of the perpetrators who stole it in the first place are still alive and benefiting from the theft.

Demogorgon

15th June 2008, 20:08

Becuase nothing says "Fascist" and "Authoritarian" quite like "Do what you like, providing you don't initiate the use of force against other people", does it?I reckon almost every political ideology claims that is their principle, what matters is what is actually meant by it. What you mean by it is not what any sane person would mean by it.

The differences are few and largely insignificant.
Not really. I doubt Hitler would ever have asked Von Mises to draw up his economic policy. Dolfuss certainly did however.

but no sane person says we ought to punish the decendents of the Spanish Inquisition whose ancestors "got away with it".Of course not, but we are not talking about sane people, we are talking about you. I don't believe that people should have their possessions confiscated to rectify centuries-old injustices, but then again I don't believe in private property.

You do of course. And you are going to have to explain how your theory which is based on outcome being legitimised by process can defend the institution of private property when all property on earth can be traced to violence.

Furthermore you have attempted to wiggle out of the slavery example by claiming that slavery was wrong because slaves were taken by force. The problem is that by the time of the Civil War, there were few, if any, slaves left that were taken by force. The importation of slaves or the creation of slaves out of those not born into slavery had been banned decades previously. According to your claims here, what happened in the past does not matter. Therefore the slaves were legitimately held. Slave owners were not initiating force after all. The starting point was the slaves were their property. Indeed any attempt by a slave to break free or even defy his master was initiation of force.

You could try getting out of it by saying you would never support the ownership of a person, no matter what. Well neither would I of course, but I am not tied to the belief that property is inviable. If one form of legally recognised property can be declared illegitimate because it is wrong to claim such a thing as property. Why not other things?

RGacky3

15th June 2008, 21:50

Hey Gack, would you support me as king if I promised to abolish private property? Oh sure, I'd live in a nice, comfy castle and lie around the pool all day. But you'd never have to sell your labour to a capitalist again. There'd just be one privileged elitist instead of hordes of them as there are now. Wouldn't it be just a little bit better than it is now?

I see TomK has made a similar deal with the People in the next country over. What's that he's amassing on my border? Are those ... soldiers, TomK? Just exercising, I presume?

Nope, first of all, how are you going to get all that comfy castle, and pool and wealth, you juts going to work really really really really hard? Nope, you'd probably be exploiting people, also if your a 'king', not only would you be able to exploit mine and everyone elses labor, you could tell us waht to do and if we did'nt do it you could have us hung? No it would'nt be better at all, it does'nt stand. If your a king, the very nature of kingship is that the king has control over the land and people, thats worse than a Capitalist.

And advocating communism will presumably allow me to own these things, will it? I'm sure I've dealt with these half-baked statistics before.

Not 'own' those things, but you won't have to sell your labor to enrich those 10% just so you can survive, half-baked statistics? If you want to call them that, facts are facts. Communism will allow freedom and equality and equal access to resources.

Not yet.

No, not never, no one wants your toothbrush, what would someone want with your house if they have their own house? Its rediculous to take it to unreasonable extremes, personal possesions and private property are 2 different things that work in different ways, if everyone has what they need they'd be no need to defend personal possesions, but private property by its very nature needs the threat of violence (otherwise you woud'nt need the laws).

Not quite. Communism advocates not only collective property (which is to say no property), but wealth redistribution regardless of work. That doesn't sound much like getting the products of your labour- it sound like giving them away.

Weath redistribution is a post -revolution action, i.e. take form the rich and colletivise it, once everything is on equal grounds there would be no need to redistribute it.

Also about the products of your labour, yeah every one has a right to it, but the nature of work is to contribute to society, not just yourself, why do you think almost every wealthy person spends a lot on philanthropy, its natural to want to help and contribute.

How many times have I been through this? They don't take it unless you're willing to give it, so no, it's not theft. Take away consensus and any kind of trade or exchange whatsoever can be called theft; what you're arguing is absurd.

Its theft becasue if they are not willing to give up themselves as wage slaves they have no living, and the only reason that is, is because the Caitalists have unjust property laws, its as much theft as street level extortion is.

How does he steal it? Does he take money out of your bank account or pay you less than what you agreed to work for?

None of those agreements are made on equal grounds, 1 has nothing but his labour, the other controls the land and Capital, so yeah, either you agree to work for a Capitalist, or starve, extortion.

-The capitalist isn't taking anything from you.
-Working for the capitalist is not compulsory.

if your one of the 90% that does'nt own anything to give yourself a living, then yeah it is.

Becuase someone somewhere is going to be forced to provide me with these things.

Your assuming that in an Anarchist Society, no one will cooperate, which is rediculous.

And if I'm not working, it's starvation and homelessness?

So how is your society any different from the one you denounce?

Difference is your working as a free and equal man, not a wage slave, and your working for the enrichment of yourself and your ocmmunity, not an economic ologarch.

Which creates a new problem- how is my body (and by extension, my labour) any different? If some one else is in need of my labour and I am compelled to give it, what does that make me, other than a glorified slave?

If someone is on the road dying I think your compelled to help, yeah, if the community is in need of your labour, why would'nt you help (assuming your a free man not a wage slave, who in this system has to worry too much about his own survival, to do anything.)

Now, you've just said that he has no right to it: Why? If someone has no right to anything bought with their labour, what do they have the right to? That doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact, it sounds like the owner here is being used or should I say exploited.

Most likely he baught it, with money he got from his business, which other people worked, but thats not the point, your looking at it from the Capitalist systems viewpoint, I'm saying the whole notion of property is rediculous to begin with.

The owner can't have see his own property? :confused:

I thought we were all entitled to the fruits of our labour? Only when it suits those it need it would seem.

My point is that, a person can buy something in a differnt country, that has been worked by other people for decades (those people have no right to it), nad he could have never even seen the thing, but still have 100% rights to it, thats a little insane.

Robert

15th June 2008, 21:53

Nope

Rats.

Tungsten

16th June 2008, 00:27

I reckon almost every political ideology claims that is their principle, what matters is what is actually meant by it.
But you don't, which explain the existence of this thread. Then there's Edric who doesn't agree.

What you mean by it is not what any sane person would mean by it.
It would be interesting to see your standard of "sane" is.

You do of course. And you are going to have to explain how your theory which is based on outcome being legitimised by process can defend the institution of private property when all property on earth can be traced to violence.

For starters, I'm not interested in the fucking "origins of property", just as someone legitimately assessing the rightness or wrongness of the Newtonian physics isn't interested in the fact that Newton was a creationist.

The fact that the law once allowed people to be considered property doesn't invalidate the concept of property. That's just sloppy thinking. Secondly, the argument that all property can be traced to violence is ridiculous. How do you "violence" property into existence. People produce goods, and by extension, property, with or without the use of violence. That property they want keep, and thus people tend to advocate a system that protects what they have and allows them to be free to produce more and keep it. This is verifiable and the result has been pretty spectacular. Countries that are economically free are significantly better places to live than countries that aren't. Take a look at the economic freedom index.

Furthermore you have attempted to wiggle out of the slavery example by claiming that slavery was wrong because slaves were taken by force.
It is. Slavery is wrong because it involved the inititation of force. The initiation of force is wrong, ergo slavery is wrong.

The problem is that by the time of the Civil War, there were few, if any, slaves left that were taken by force.
Slavery is wrong because it involved the inititation of force. The initiation of force is wrong, ergo slavery is wrong.

The importation of slaves or the creation of slaves out of those not born into slavery had been banned decades previously.
Slavery is wrong because it involved the inititation of force. The initiation of force is wrong, ergo slavery is wrong. Imported or otherwise.

According to your claims here, what happened in the past does not matter.
It doesn't. The slaves are dead and their owners are dead. No one can be bought into account. What they did was morally wrong, but from a present day context, irrelevent.

Therefore the slaves were legitimately held. Slave owners were not initiating force after all.
Yes, they were initiating force. From a present-day context, the fact is irrelevent.

The starting point was the slaves were their property. Indeed any attempt by a slave to break free or even defy his master was initiation of force.
No it wasn't. To say it was would be a misuse of the term force", something you and mates here do quite frequently.

You could try getting out of it by saying you would never support the ownership of a person, no matter what. Well neither would I of course, but I am not tied to the belief that property is inviable. If one form of legally recognised property can be declared illegitimate because it is wrong to claim such a thing as property. Why not other things?
Becuase "other things" don't involve in the initation of force and are therefore not detrimental to anyone.

---

Not 'own' those things, but you won't have to sell your labor to enrich those 10% just so you can survive,
It would seem that the only thing that's going to change is the percentage, which does little to inspire confidence.

half-baked statistics? If you want to call them that, facts are facts. Communism will allow freedom and equality and equal access to resources.
It will allow economic equality, which, by that you mean "each according to his needs", which actually conflicts with freedom and political equality. If my life is to be spent tied poor, I'm not free.

why would someone want with your house if they have their own house?
You're making guarantees of material prosperity, which is inadvisable as you can't legislate them into existence.

Weath redistribution is a post -revolution action, i.e. take form the rich and colletivise it, once everything is on equal grounds there would be no need to redistribute it.

Also about the products of your labour, yeah every one has a right to it, but the nature of work is to contribute to society,
Nature of what work? The nature of slave labour wasn't to contribute to society, but to the slave owner. The nature of wage labour is to primarily contribute to the one working for it; the contribution to society and the boss is a secondary consideration. The nature of communist labour seem to be primaliry to meet the needs of the needy, whose needs are ill-defined.

not just yourself, why do you think almost every wealthy person spends a lot on philanthropy, its natural to want to help and contribute.
Now this is weak. If it was in our nature to want to help and contribute, we'd already be living in this utopia (and I use the term loosely) and nothing else would have materialised. Plus there's nothing stopping people helping and contributing right now. In fact you're probably doing it just by working in today's society.

Its theft becasue if they are not willing to give up themselves as wage slaves they have no living,
That's pretty much the state of reality; there's no compulsion to work, but have to do it anyway.

None of those agreements are made on equal grounds, 1 has nothing but his labour, the other controls the land and Capital,
Land and capital isn't of much use without labour, but you don't claim that the worker is extorting him by withholding his labour or going elsewhere, do you? He doesn't have the right to make you work for him.

Your assuming that in an Anarchist Society, no one will cooperate, which is rediculous.
I wasn't talking about cooperation- I was talking about people being forced to cooperate. There's no choice there.

If someone is on the road dying I think your compelled to help, yeah, if the community is in need of your labour, why would'nt you help
Because having to working by means of political compulsion (as opposed to metaphysical necessity) is the fast track to slavery.

Most likely he baught it, with money he got from his business, which other people worked, but thats not the point,
It's not what I said either. I wasn't talking about a businessman, I was talking about an ordinary wage labourer. I know of one who rents out rooms in his house for money.

your looking at it from the Capitalist systems viewpoint, I'm saying the whole notion of property is rediculous to begin with.
Oh, I'm looking at it from the "wrong paradigm". :laugh: Bloody hell.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2008, 01:26

Evacuate them to where, exactly? It doesn't make sense to send someone "back" to a place they've never been before in their life. You wouldn't be sending them back, you'd just be sending them.

And who should we then give this land to? The "natives"? Not only does that smack of racism, (what gives them the right to it anymore that the immigrants? Any injustices commited were against their ancestors- not them. Back in those days, pretty much everyone was at it; the natives included.) Whose to say the so-called natives didn't previously take it from someone else?

Oh, and just one more thing: if I was half-cast white/american indian, do I only get half a share?

The rest of the examples are just more of the same. As with copyright laws, you can't hold property indefinitely. Once you're dead, your claim to it ceases.
So you oppose inheritance, then? Excellent. We can introduce socialism without offending your sensibilities simply by passing a law requiring all means of production to become collective property upon the death of the current owner.

Also, suppose the state confiscates all property and holds it for a few generations. After that time has passed, would you say that the state is the rightful owner of all property, since any injustices commited were against people who are long dead?

Surely you see the ridiculous implications of a philosophy that says theft is justified if only the thief manages to hold on to the stolen property long enough.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2008, 02:04

I'll bet you can see why oppression and exploitation are bad, even though fraud and theft are just forms of them.
No they are not - or at least, not necessarily.

My ethics are mainly utilitarian. Oppression and exploitation are bad because (a) they cause unnecessary suffering, which is bad, and (b) they are an expression of inequalities of wealth and power, and such inequalities are bad.

Theft and fraud can be justified on a case-by-case basis if they can be shown to promote human happiness. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor usually increases total happiness, for example (since the marginal value of $1 is greater to a poor person than a rich person), so it is usually a good thing to do.

Ugh, what a mess. I'm not currently using my car, is that not mine? Define "currently using". It's technically a means of production, just ask delivery drivers. What if it breaks down, is it not big and immobile? There are other potential means of production too- computers etc. I don't that carry that around with me, so will that go too?
I don't believe in any kind of private property at all, so I have no need to discriminate between things you can own and things you can't. You shouldn't own anything - and neither should I or anyone else.

That's not to say you shouldn't use things. Of course you should be given a car, a computer, and a house for your personal use. And the law should be written in such a way that once given to you, these things cannot be taken away, even by majority decision, except in certain emergency situations. (do not confuse collective power with arbitrary collective power - I am a constitutionalist communist)

Becuase nothing says "Fascist" and "Authoritarian" quite like "Do what you like, providing you don't initiate the use of force against other people", does it?
That statement is nothing but an endorsement of the status quo. To say that property should not be violated is to say that you support whoever owns most property at the moment.

So, yes, you could be a fascist, if you lived in a fascist society and said "do what you like, providing you don't initiate the use of force against other people" - since force would be required to overthrow fascism.

The whole notion of "inherited guilt" in itself smacks of religious lunacy
If you can't inherit guilt, why should you be allowed to inherit property? If people can inherit monetary debts, why not moral guilt?

If inheritance is justified, guilt should be inherited. If inheritance is not justified, then guilt should not be inherited - but neither should anything else.

You're saying that children should get the benefits of what their parents did but not have to pay the debts? Ridiculous.

Demogorgon

16th June 2008, 02:06

Countries that are economically free are significantly better places to live than countries that aren't. Take a look at the economic freedom index.
You mean that list of rich countries? The countries at the top all have such things that you regard as an assault on freedom as extensive welfare systems, large amounts of business regulation and in most cases relatively high taxes. What would be the justification for putting, for instance, Denmark (with some of the highest taxes in the world, a very large public sector and plenty of regulation) at number 11 and Brazil (where in practice companies can do what they like) at number 101? It couldn't be a simple case of trying to stack the deck could it?

The phrase much try harder comes to mind.

Yes, they were initiating force. From a present-day context, the fact is irrelevent.When precisely was the force initiated? Slaves were the property of their owner from the instant they emerged from their mother's womb. I doubt many slave owners would even have known about the births till some time after the fact, so they cannot have initiated force when the slave actually became their property. So when exactly was force initiated?

Becuase "other things" don't involve in the initation of force and are therefore not detrimental to anyone.

This is what is known as begging the question. First of all I dispute your notion that slavery is uniquely a case of initiating force for reasons mentioned. And even at that, you have not explained-the expectation for the rest of us to bow to your half-baked ideology notwithstanding-why we should take initiation of force as always being bad and more importantly the only thing that is bad.

Suppose somebody in your ideal world bought the street outside my house and perhaps because they wanted to spite me declared that I was not allowed to set foot upon it or be guilty of trespass (initiating force apparently). They would not be initiating force (by your definition). Are you really saying they aren't harming me?

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2008, 02:07

Countries that are economically free are significantly better places to live than countries that aren't. Take a look at the economic freedom index.
The economic freedom index has been published since 1995. Unless you're suggesting that all rich countries have acquired their wealth since 1995, the index is worthless. It is a snapshot in time, it proves nothing about longer historical trends. I'm perfectly willing to admit that, in the period 1995-2008, the most "economically free" countries have been the richest. So what? Come back with another 50 years' worth of statistics and then we'll talk.

Besides, you are now using consequentialist justifications for capitalism. Not so fast. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is capitalism justified by some conception of "natural rights", or is it justified by its economic effects? Make up your mind.

Tungsten

16th June 2008, 16:30

So you oppose inheritance, then? Excellent.
Not really.

We can introduce socialism without offending your sensibilities
My sensibilities don't gyrate around inheritance.

simply by passing a law requiring all means of production to become collective property upon the death of the current owner.
Which, aside from the fact that passing such a law would be initiating force. I would most likely result in everyone giving or selling their property before they died.

Also, suppose the state confiscates all property and holds it for a few generations.
Which is stealing, which warrants punishment.

After that time has passed, would you say that the state is the rightful owner of all property, since any injustices commited were against people who are long dead?
Those who stole the property in the first place be dead too and you're still trying to be a smart arse.

Well you've made the situation even more complicated by adding another factor- the state, which is a political entity and not a person.

Surely you see the ridiculous implications of a philosophy that says theft is justified if only the thief manages to hold on to the stolen property long enough.
Except that the thief is dead, and no it's not justified.

Or do you propose we should jail Sarkozy for the thefts comitted by Napoleon?

----

No they are not - or at least, not necessarily.

My ethics are mainly utilitarian. Oppression and exploitation are bad because (a) they cause unnecessary suffering, which is bad,

Circular reasoning. Why is unecessary suffering and inequality bad?

Theft and fraud can be justified on a case-by-case basis if they can be shown to promote human happiness.
Now we're coming to the real standard: Your standard of good seems to resemble hedonism.

The question is, why only restrict it to theft and fraud?

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor usually increases total happiness, for example (since the marginal value of $1 is greater to a poor person than a rich person), so it is usually a good thing to do.
Except that it's a zero-sum game and overall happiness (however that's supposed to be measured) is unchanged.

I don't believe in any kind of private property at all, so I have no need to discriminate between things you can own and things you can't. You shouldn't own anything - and neither should I or anyone else.

That's not to say you shouldn't use things.
Word games. If you're not free to use, sell or dispose of something as you see fit, then it isn't yours and vice versa. Your use of something will more than likely restrict someone else's use of it, which is where conflicts will start.

That statement is nothing but an endorsement of the status quo.
Property rights are violated on a daily basis. Mostly by the status quo.

To say that property should not be violated is to say that you support whoever owns most property at the moment.
What sloppy thinking. Why only those who own the most? Where have I ever said "only those who own the most property benefit"? Everyone benefits from not having their property stolen.

So, yes, you could be a fascist, if you lived in a fascist society and said "do what you like, providing you don't initiate the use of force against other people" - since force would be required to overthrow fascism.
But I'm not living in fascism, and fascism generally requires force. The benevolent dictator is a myth.

If you can't inherit guilt, why should you be allowed to inherit property?
Because the guilt in this case isn't rightfully owned.

If people can inherit monetary debts,
What, from two hundred years ago?

If inheritance is justified, guilt should be inherited. If inheritance is not justified, then guilt should not be inherited - but neither should anything else.
Yes, thank you for demonstrating that you have no sense of historical context.

You're saying that children should get the benefits of what their parents did but not have to pay the debts?
The debts of who, people who died 200 years ago? How are they getting the benefits? The benefactors died 200 years ago, too.

----

You mean that list of rich countries?
No, I mean the economic freedom index.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/countries.cfm

The countries at the top all have such things that you regard as an assault on freedom as extensive welfare systems, large amounts of business regulation and in most cases relatively high taxes.
Ass backwards as usual. They only have those because they can afford them. Countries at the bottom of the scale either can't afford them or try to implement them and bankrupt themselves. The only reason they can afford them is because economic freedom is the best method of generating wealth.

What would be the justification for putting, for instance, Denmark (with some of the highest taxes in the world, a very large public sector and plenty of regulation) at number 11 and Brazil (where in practice companies can do what they like) at number 101? It couldn't be a simple case of trying to stack the deck could it?
The list of criterion are given: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, freedom from government, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption and labour freedom.

Scoring low in one particular area does not mean a particular country scores low in all of the other areas. A large public sector alone does not a slave state make.

"The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is limited by Brazil's national regulatory environment. Starting a business takes more than three times the world average of 43 days, and obtaining a business license takes more than the global average of 234 days. Despite reform efforts, regulation is complex, discretionary, and non-transparent. Closing a business is difficult."

This is what you interpret as "companies can do whatever they like", is it? :laugh:

The phrase much try harder comes to mind.
"Read the source and use some common sense" comes to mine. The size of the public sector and business freedom are not the sole determinants of a free economy. That should be obvious.

When precisely was the force initiated? Slaves were the property of their owner from the instant they emerged from their mother's womb. I doubt many slave owners would even have known about the births till some time after the fact, so they cannot have initiated force when the slave actually became their property. So when exactly was force initiated?
Hmm...If I break into someones house, am I initiating force when I break in, when I start to take stuff, or merely when I leave the house with it?
If I rape someone...etc etc.
What irrelevent, mendacious arguments.

This is what is known as begging the question. First of all I dispute your notion that slavery is uniquely a case of initiating force for reasons mentioned.
Oh you "dispute it". Well blow me down. Something missing though- ah, that's it- a counter argument.

And even at that, you have not explained-the expectation for the rest of us to bow to your half-baked ideology notwithstanding-why we should take initiation of force as always being bad and more importantly the only thing that is bad.
Bad for the individual, bad for society too. Demonstrably bad. Oh yes, some ill-defined good could possibly come from initiating force (ask Mr Bush), just like by killing some random person in the street, you "might" kill someone who actually deserved to be killed, but that's not something to be endorsed and it's no basis for a rational system.

And I never said it was the only thing that was bad either. Your imagination is at work again. Jumping off a cliff is very bad indeed, but it's not initiating force.

Suppose somebody in your ideal world bought the street outside my house and perhaps because they wanted to spite me declared that I was not allowed to set foot upon it or be guilty of trespass (initiating force apparently).
That would be a violation of your right of way as it would effectively be imprisoning you.

----

The economic freedom index has been published since 1995. Unless you're suggesting that all rich countries have acquired their wealth since 1995, the index is worthless.
It's not a measure of wealth, it's a measure of economic freedom.

It is a snapshot in time, it proves nothing about longer historical trends. I'm perfectly willing to admit that, in the period 1995-2008, the most "economically free" countries have been the richest. So what? Come back with another 50 years' worth of statistics and then we'll talk.
The same names have been at the top, more or less, for 50 years.

Besides, you are now using consequentialist justifications for capitalism. Not so fast. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is capitalism justified by some conception of "natural rights", or is it justified by its economic effects? Make up your mind.
Natural rights are, by and large, a prerequisite to economic freedom, which leads to favourable economic effects.

Peacekeeper

16th June 2008, 16:36

Before you attack freedom you should at least provide a logical argument. When Ruth rented the house she voluntarily signed a contract which she hopefully read. If the contract stated the conditions by which she may be removed and those conditions included change of ownership, then she knew what she was getting into. If the contract stated that she has an absolute right to stay in the property for a certain period of time and that time was not yet expired, then it is her right to stay. When the original owner sells the property, he/she sells all the contracts associated with it too, and the contract of sale would state that all contracts associated with the property must be disclosed.

Yes... but you you seem to be forgetting that Ruth has the fundamental right of housing and that no one, including John, is entitled to own someone else's home as their "private property." So Ruth is in the right and should convince her neighbors to join her in a People's Army to repel any forces sent by the bourgeoisie to "evict" her from her own home. :)

Demogorgon

16th June 2008, 18:42

Circular reasoning. Why is unecessary suffering and inequality bad?
Why is initiation of force bad? You say because it harms people. Unnecessary suffering and inequality objectively cause more harm than the relatively mild initiation of fore required to correct them. So what makes one bad and the other alright according to you?

Except that it's a zero-sum game and overall happiness (however that's supposed to be measured) is unchanged.Is it? Take a thousand dollars from Bill Gates and it will have no impact on him at all. Give a thousand dollars to me and it will do me a lot of benefit indeed. Not a zero-sum game by any means

Word games. If you're not free to use, sell or dispose of something as you see fit, then it isn't yours and vice versa.That is interesting. One does not own something if one cannot sell it. Given self-ownership is a large part of Libertarian dogma, one can apparently sell oneself. This justifies slavery. It is hardly an abstract point either. There are several million people kept as slaves in the world today who have, in desperation, done exactly that. Apparently that is alright?

No, I mean the economic freedom index.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/countries.cfm
I know what you mean. The list is useless because, as I say, it simply categorises rich countries as being the freest ones.

Ass backwards as usual. They only have those because they can afford them. Countries at the bottom of the scale either can't afford them or try to implement them and bankrupt themselves. The only reason they can afford them is because economic freedom is the best method of generating wealth.
Not at all. There are plenty of poor places that successfully maintain extensive welfare states. Kerala is the best known example. Further many of the countries at the top of that list became rich through extensive Government intervention. Singapore, which by some sorcery is ranked second, achieved its high standard of living through a combination of a large welfare state and very strict urban planning. To claim by your definition that it is the second freest economy in the world is simply absurd.

Mind you, if you are going to say it is, you will have the problem of explaining away its extremely authoritarian social policies. I thought that "the freer the market, the freer the people".

The list of criterion are given: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, freedom from government, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption and labour freedom.

Scoring low in one particular area does not mean a particular country scores low in all of the other areas. A large public sector alone does not a slave state make.

"The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is limited by Brazil's national regulatory environment. Starting a business takes more than three times the world average of 43 days, and obtaining a business license takes more than the global average of 234 days. Despite reform efforts, regulation is complex, discretionary, and non-transparent. Closing a business is difficult."

This is what you interpret as "companies can do whatever they like", is it? :laugh:And what precisely does a regulation do when it is impossible to enforce. Everybody knows that the Brazilian Government does not have the resources to enforce its own rules. By the criteria you list, Denmark can only legitimately be considered more free in terms of low corruption.

Hmm...If I break into someones house, am I initiating force when I break in, when I start to take stuff, or merely when I leave the house with it?
If I rape someone...etc etc.
What irrelevent, mendacious arguments.Nope. You have still not told us when the slave owner initiated force in the case of a slave born into slavery. "Because I say so" is not an argument. If it is, then owning land is always initiation of force because I say so.

Oh you "dispute it". Well blow me down. Something missing though- ah, that's it- a counter argument.A counter-argument requires an argument in the first place. You have merely quoted from your Libertarian book of Catechisms. Not given us any argument.

Bad for the individual, bad for society too. Demonstrably bad. Oh yes, some ill-defined good could possibly come from initiating force (ask Mr Bush), just like by killing some random person in the street, you "might" kill someone who actually deserved to be killed, but that's not something to be endorsed and it's no basis for a rational system. Killing people is wrong, but by "initiation of force" you mean a hell of a lot more than acts of violence. It is perfectly conceivable to see great good coming out of initiating non-violent force.

To take one example, which even you should accept. Chicago school economists reckon that public spending comprising around 20% of GDP is necessary for a functioning capitalist economy. Given that you see a functioning capitalist economy as a good thing, you must see such spending as also being a good thing, or at least a necessary evil. Extracting taxes is definitely initiation of force according to the "Big book of Libertarian assertions", but it is also necessary for capitalism. So do you accept initiating force here or not?

That would be a violation of your right of way as it would effectively be imprisoning you.
It would be, but seeing as giving me right of way would involve violating property rights, what gives me right of way?

A few years ago, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation giving people right of way through all the landowners estates. People of your ilk were fanatically against this.

Natural rights are, by and large, a prerequisite to economic freedom, which leads to favourable economic effects.
What are the physical properties of natural rights?

Kwisatz Haderach

17th June 2008, 08:46

Those who stole the property in the first place be dead too and you're still trying to be a smart arse.

Well you've made the situation even more complicated by adding another factor- the state, which is a political entity and not a person.
Answer the question. If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does it then become its rightful owner, so that your principle of non-initiation of force could be used to justify state ownership of everything?

Except that the thief is dead, and no it's not justified.
So past theft is not justified, but nothing should be done about it?

Bullshit. You can't say that X is morally wrong while at the same time arguing that no action should be taken to correct X.

Or do you propose we should jail Sarkozy for the thefts comitted by Napoleon?
No, because I'm not the one who thinks theft is always wrong. You are.

And yes, your philosophy does imply that Sarkozy should be jailed for Napoleon's crimes - or, more generally, that the French state should compensate the descendants of the victims of those crimes.

Circular reasoning. Why is unecessary suffering and inequality bad?
Utilitarianism takes the statements "suffering is bad" and "happiness is good" as axiomatic.

Just like you seem to take the statement "violence is bad" as axiomatic.

The question is, why only restrict it to theft and fraud?
I don't.

Word games. If you're not free to use, sell or dispose of something as you see fit, then it isn't yours and vice versa.
Right. So, what? I told you I don't support property.

Your use of something will more than likely restrict someone else's use of it, which is where conflicts will start.
Yes, and that's why we have a government (in socialism) or a community council (in communism) - to resolve such conflicts.

What sloppy thinking. Why only those who own the most? Where have I ever said "only those who own the most property benefit"? Everyone benefits from not having their property stolen.
Wrong. Those who own more property benefit more than those who own less.

Furthermore, a person who owns less property than he would be able to steal in the absence of property rights does not benefit from the existence of those rights at all. A lot of poor people fall in this category.

The debts of who, people who died 200 years ago? How are they getting the benefits? The benefactors died 200 years ago, too.
If I steal something and my children inherit it, they are getting the benefits of my theft without having to pay for it.

A large public sector alone does not a slave state make.
Maybe, but a large public sector (or rather an all-encompassing public sector) does a socialist state make.

So, if you want to argue against socialism, the size of the public sector is the only criterion you are allowed to use. Brazil may not be "economically free", but it sure as hell isn't socialist either.

"Read the source and use some common sense" comes to mine. The size of the public sector and business freedom are not the sole determinants of a free economy. That should be obvious.
But they are the sole determinants of a socialist economy, and, as such, they are the only indicators relevant in your arguments against us.

You can talk about how corruption harms prosperity if you find someone arguing that corruption is a good thing. But we make no such argument.

It's not a measure of wealth, it's a measure of economic freedom.

The same names have been at the top, more or less, for 50 years.
The top of what? Not the top of the economic freedom index, certainly, since the index has only existed for 13 years.

Natural rights are, by and large, a prerequisite to economic freedom, which leads to favourable economic effects.
So which one justifies the system? The natural rights or the economic effects?

Or, to ask the same question differently:
1. If natural rights did not lead to favourable economic effects, would you still support them?
2. If better economic effects could be achieved by violating natural rights, would you support that instead?

pusher robot

17th June 2008, 16:11

Answer the question. If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does it then become its rightful owner, so that your principle of non-initiation of force could be used to justify state ownership of everything?

Of course not, since the principle would be violated by the initial confiscation. This should be obvious.

So past theft is not justified, but nothing should be done about it?

Bullshit. You can't say that X is morally wrong while at the same time arguing that no action should be taken to correct X.

His argument is more that no action can be taken to correct X, since the only way to correct X would be to take the wrongfully appropriated property from the wrongdoer and give it to the wronged. Of course, if both the wrongdoer and the wronged - or the property for that matter - no longer exist, then restitution is impossible.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th June 2008, 21:07

His argument is more that no action can be taken to correct X, since the only way to correct X would be to take the wrongfully appropriated property from the wrongdoer and give it to the wronged. Of course, if both the wrongdoer and the wronged - or the property for that matter - no longer exist, then restitution is impossible.
Let me modify my initial question then. I asked:

"If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does it then become its rightful owner, so that your principle of non-initiation of force could be used to justify state ownership of everything?"

I will change it to:

"If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does restitution then become impossible, so that you would advocate the continued ownership of all property by the state - or at least the state's right to keep or sell that property as it wishes?"

In my mind the two questions amount to exactly the same thing, since a moral rule that recommends no action is, to me, no rule at all. Moral condemnation is worth nothing unless backed by action. But have it your way. Answer the second question.

pusher robot

17th June 2008, 21:55

Let me modify my initial question then. I asked:

"If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does it then become its rightful owner, so that your principle of non-initiation of force could be used to justify state ownership of everything?"

I will change it to:

"If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does restitution then become impossible, so that you would advocate the continued ownership of all property by the state - or at least the state's right to keep or sell that property as it wishes?"

In my mind the two questions amount to exactly the same thing, since a moral rule that recommends no action is, to me, no rule at all. Moral condemnation is worth nothing unless backed by action. But have it your way. Answer the second question.

I would argue that the state is violating minarchist principles by holding property inessential to good government and therefore has a moral obligation to immediately divest itself of all unneeded property. But, I would have to agree that it would be by that point the state's property to divest. The original owners are long gone and restitituion is impossible.

Demogorgon

17th June 2008, 22:02

I would argue that the state is violating minarchist principles by holding property inessential to good government and therefore has a moral obligation to immediately divest itself of all unneeded property. But, I would have to agree that it would be by that point the state's property to divest. The original owners are long gone and restitituion is impossible.
Why is not operating according to the principles of minarchism immoral?

pusher robot

17th June 2008, 22:57

Why is not operating according to the principles of minarchism immoral?

Because it decreases the scope of liberty of the individual (or, in propertarian terms, impinges on the individual's derivative rights of self-ownership) without justification.

Demogorgon

17th June 2008, 23:10

Because it decreases the scope of liberty of the individual (or, in propertarian terms, impinges on the individual's derivative rights of self-ownership) without justification.
No it doesn't. Britain had what is pretty close to a minarchist Government in the nineteenth century and to seriously claim there was more liberty then there is now is frankly absurd.

I will put forward the claim that liberty is entirely contingent upon the state guaranteeing the collective welfare and that a minarchist state will by definition infringe upon liberty. In practical terms history seems to have borne me out.

Tungsten

18th June 2008, 00:52

Why is initiation of force bad? You say because it harms people. Unnecessary suffering and inequality objectively cause more harm than the relatively mild initiation of force required to correct them. So what makes one bad and the other alright according to you?
(Economic) inequality doesn't cause harm to anyone, as you can be living in luxury and still have people with far, far more than you have. On other other hand, we can all be equal, in the same way as the victims of an African famine are all equal, and all be suffering for it.

Is it? Take a thousand dollars from Bill Gates and it will have no impact on him at all. Give a thousand dollars to me and it will do me a lot of benefit indeed. Not a zero-sum game by any means

Watch carefully:

1000-1000 = 0

There are plenty of things the average man can spare that he doesn't need that could be sold to help those worse off, but the fact that he has these things deon't make them any less "theirs".

That is interesting. One does not own something if one cannot sell it. Given self-ownership is a large part of Libertarian dogma, one can apparently sell oneself. This justifies slavery.

NO! Not this nut-licking crap again!

-Selling yourself is not slavery, selling someone else is.
-Stabbing yourself in the dick with a red-hot poker is not torture, but doing it to someone else is.
-Comitting suicide is not murder etc.

I know what you mean. The list is useless because, as I say, it simply categorises rich countries as being the freest ones.

Freedom generally leads to be riches and it's not a rich list anyway- how rich is Singapore relative the US?

Not at all. There are plenty of poor places that successfully maintain extensive welfare states. Kerala is the best known example.
It's a dump. Trust me, I've been there.

Further many of the countries at the top of that list became rich through extensive Government intervention. Singapore, which by some sorcery is ranked second, achieved its high standard of living through a combination of a large welfare state and very strict urban planning.
The welfare state is a means of distributing wealth. How does redistribution generate wealth? It doesn't.

To claim by your definition that it is the second freest economy in the world is simply absurd.
The list in relative, scoring lower on one criterion is going to lower the overally score less than one that has less freedom across the board.

Mind you, if you are going to say it is, you will have the problem of explaining away its extremely authoritarian social policies. I thought that "the freer the market, the freer the people".
Yes, I've heard you can kneecapped for dropping chewing gum in Singapore, but the zealousness of the police don't have a much of a bearing on whether or not the country has a high degree of economic freedom. There is a difference between a social policy and an economic policy, but there are places where they overlap at the edges.

Nope. You have still not told us when the slave owner initiated force in the case of a slave born into slavery. "Because I say so" is not an argument.
Nice try: trying to transform a temporal issue into a conceptial one and hoping that no one will notice. It isn't going to work.

If it is, then owning land is always initiation of force because I say so. A counter-argument requires an argument in the first place. You have merely quoted from your Libertarian book of Catechisms. Not given us any argument.
If the last paragraph I replied to is anything to go by, you probably wouldn't recognise one if you saw one anyway.

To take one example, which even you should accept. Chicago school economists reckon that public spending comprising around 20% of GDP is necessary for a functioning capitalist economy.
I'm not a Chicago boy and I don't see how public spending in itself in necessary to make the economy function. Policing and other things are another story.

Given that you see a functioning capitalist economy as a good thing, you must see such spending as also being a good thing, or at least a necessary evil. Extracting taxes is definitely initiation of force according to the "Big book of Libertarian assertions", but it is also necessary for capitalism. So do you accept initiating force here or not?
I'm not naive enought to think taxation can be completely elimitated, but there should be a limit to what the taxation should fund (and gaining the money through other means, fines etc). The only reason I can see for paying taxes is to have your (negative) rights protected.

A few years ago, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation giving people right of way through all the landowners estates. People of your ilk were fanatically against this.
Then they weren't my of ilk, then were they? There's a difference between simply demanding a right of way in everyday life and a right to "trespass wherever you want".

What are the physical properties of natural rights?
They're an abstraction, Mr Materialist, like numbers.

No it doesn't. Britain had what is pretty close to a minarchist Government in the nineteenth century and to seriously claim there was more liberty then there is now is frankly absurd.

Of course there was more liberty. Social and financial.

I will put forward the claim that liberty is entirely contingent upon the state guaranteeing the collective welfare

The soviet union was contructed with the intention of attaining collective welfare. It turned out that this required, in practical terms, an infringment of liberties.

In practical terms history seems to have borne me out.

Trading liberty for security has consequences. A society where people will be compelled - on demand - to work for the benefit of the poor whether they want to or not isn't a free society.

----

Answer the question. If the state confiscates all property and keeps it for a few centuries, does it then become its rightful owner, so that your principle of non-initiation of force could be used to justify state ownership of everything?

A state that doesn't initiate force and follows it absolutely isn't likely to sieze any property in the first place, so it's a moot point. But let's imagine a statist government did confiscate all property, and then a few centuries later a libertarian government somehow came to power- it would most likely roll back the state and give the land back to the decendants (providing there were records to prove what had been taken), or it could be divided up or sold off in some other way.

The fact that you've pushed the boat so far out that you're reached to shores of absurdity is very telling. It's another one of those ridiculous questions like "what if everyone on earth sold all property to one person and he then decided to produce enough food for himself" as an argument against property rights. Amusing to think about, but with no basis in the real world.

So past theft is not justified, but nothing should be done about it?
What do you propose is done about it? Dig up the corpses and put them on trial? Lunacy.

And yes, your philosophy does imply that Sarkozy should be jailed for Napoleon's crimes - or, more generally, that the French state should compensate the descendants of the victims of those crimes.
Well you would think that. You're a collectivist and you think everyone else shares your mindset.

Utilitarianism takes the statements "suffering is bad" and "happiness is good" as axiomatic.
Using happiness as the standard creates problems and contradictions, as the definition and pursuit of happiness varies from individual to individual. My happiness could, in theory, cause your suffering. Is my happiness therefore bad? Or your suffing good?

Just like you seem to take the statement "violence is bad" as axiomatic.
Initiation of force is bad != violence is bad

The retaliatory use of violence is good.

Yes, and that's why we have a government (in socialism) or a community council (in communism) - to resolve such conflicts
So there's going to be government making all the decisions and deciding who uses what. How's that any different from the Kremlin deciding who uses what?

Wrong. Those who own more property benefit more than those who own less.
That wasn't your argument. You said only those who own the most property benefit.

Furthermore, a person who owns less property than he would be able to steal in the absence of property rights does not benefit from the existence of those rights at all.
A lot of poor people fall in this category.
The result, in the absense of enforced property rights, would not result in their dissapearence. You'd still see a mutual, defacto respect for them at best. At worst, you'd see a might-makes-right war of all against all.

You seem to think this is favourable for the poor, and you're deluded. Do you think no one would think of taking advantage of the situation? Yes, the poor may steal property form the rich. And then someone will steal it from them. Stealing isn't something only the impoverished do.

But they are the sole determinants of a socialist economy, and, as such, they are the only indicators relevant in your arguments against us.

The Soviet Union had an absolutely massive public sector. Does this mean you're admitting it was socialist?

The top of what? Not the top of the economic freedom index, certainly, since the index has only existed for 13 years.
Caclulating economic freedom based on historical records is presumably impossible?

So which one justifies the system? The natural rights or the economic effects?
The natural rights. The economic effects are what follow.

Or, to ask the same question differently:
1. If natural rights did not lead to favourable economic effects, would you still support them?
2. If better economic effects could be achieved by violating natural rights, would you support that instead?
I'll respond with two questions of my own:

"If socialism harms the poor, would you support it?"

"If fascism was the best political system, would you support it?"

Demogorgon

18th June 2008, 01:12

Of course there was more liberty. Social and financial.

And here we have it straight from the horses mouth, for all your tantrums when I accused you off being a fascist earlier you have out proven me right with this extreme authoritarian statement. That you can honestly think that Victorian Britain where employers had near absolute power over their employees, where non-property owners were denied the right to vote, where, for a long time industrial action by workers was banned, where working class people could not expect to live past eighteen, where children were forced down the mines, where the vast majority of people had no autoomy over their own lives was more free than modern Britain is disgusting.

To you freedom is nothing more than the removal of limitations on the power of those at the top of society. Frankly you disgust me.

pusher robot

18th June 2008, 01:48

No it doesn't. Britain had what is pretty close to a minarchist Government in the nineteenth century and to seriously claim there was more liberty then there is now is frankly absurd.

There was more in some areas and less in others. But there are so many other differences between the world now and then that it is an entirely irrelevant comparison.

I will put forward the claim that liberty is entirely contingent upon the state guaranteeing the collective welfare and that a minarchist state will by definition infringe upon liberty. In practical terms history seems to have borne me out.
Only because you assume that correlation is causation, the sloppiest of all methods of reasoning. Since you are claiming that minarchism infringes liberty "by definition," I suggest presenting a deductive argument rather than an empirical one.

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2008, 02:00

(Economic) inequality doesn't cause harm to anyone, as you can be living in luxury and still have people with far, far more than you have.
Economic inequality is a suboptimal distribution of wealth. However rich the average person is, she would be even richer if wealth was distributed more equally. Even if everyone was already living in luxury, happiness could be increased by making the distribution of wealth more egalitarian.

On other other hand, we can all be equal, in the same way as the victims of an African famine are all equal, and all be suffering for it.
Straw man. No one ever said that equality, and equality alone, was their sole political goal.

Just like you would presumably not be satisfied with a situation in which we were all free and living in a libertarian society, but under threat of imminent death from some natural disaster.

Selling yourself is not slavery, selling someone else is.
So you're saying it's ok to sell oneself into a lifetime of servitude?

That is all we need to know. We call that slavery. We don't care what you call it.

The welfare state is a means of distributing wealth. How does redistribution generate wealth? It doesn't.
Really? Don't you libertarians believe that wealth can be magically created if object X changes hands from a person who wants it less to a person who wants it more?

Trading liberty for security has consequences. A society where people will be compelled - on demand - to work for the benefit of the poor whether they want to or not isn't a free society.
And if we don't want your so-called "free society?"

A state that doesn't initiate force and follows it absolutely isn't likely to sieze any property in the first place, so it's a moot point. But let's imagine a statist government did confiscate all property, and then a few centuries later a libertarian government somehow came to power- it would most likely roll back the state and give the land back to the decendants (providing there were records to prove what had been taken), or it could be divided up or sold off in some other way.
Well obviously a libertarian government would privatize things, regardless of when, where or how they passed into public ownership.

But that's not what I'm interested in. Suppose the government was not libertarian and wanted to keep its property. Would it have a right to do so, according to your philosophy?

The reason I am asking this is because libertarians often argue that government ownership of productive property is immoral. It seems we have found a situation in which libertarians would have to concede that government ownership of productive property is morally acceptable, although not ideal.

Or to put it differently: Suppose someone were to rebel against this government that has owned property for centuries and demand some piece of government property for himself - or otherwise demand that the government uses its property to provide him with a service that the government does not wish to provide (e.g. the ability to use government presses to print a certain book). Would the government be justified in using retaliatory force against this person?

If yes, we've found something even more interesting: A case in which libertarian philosophy must conclude that disobedience towards the state is an immoral initiation of force that can and should be punished. It seems the state is perfectly within its rights to crush the rebel scum. Oh, my!

The fact that you've pushed the boat so far out that you're reached to shores of absurdity is very telling. It's another one of those ridiculous questions like "what if everyone on earth sold all property to one person and he then decided to produce enough food for himself" as an argument against property rights. Amusing to think about, but with no basis in the real world.
No basis in the real world? Soviet-style governments owned most property in their respective societies. The kind of socialist government I propose, while operating on a different political system and being more democratic, would also own a similar amount of property.

So I very much hope that the scenario I presented will become reality a few centuries into the future. It is perfectly reasonable for me to be curious as to how libertarians will behave in such a socialist future.

Using happiness as the standard creates problems and contradictions, as the definition and pursuit of happiness varies from individual to individual. My happiness could, in theory, cause your suffering. Is my happiness therefore bad? Or your suffing good?
Welcome to the wonderful world of consequentialist ethics, where you can no longer apply a simple dogmatic mantra to every situation, and must instead judge for yourself whether the good consequences of an action (= increased human happiness) outweigh the bad consequences (= more suffering).

Happiness is good, suffering is evil, and an action is good to the extent that it produces more happiness than suffering.

Initiation of force is bad != violence is bad

The retaliatory use of violence is good.
Mmmkay. Suppose I shoot you. That very same act can be either good or evil depending on something you did to me some time in the past?

So there's going to be government making all the decisions and deciding who uses what. How's that any different from the Kremlin deciding who uses what?
Because this government would be democratic, while most Kremlin governments were not democratic.

The result, in the absense of enforced property rights, would not result in their dissapearence. You'd still see a mutual, defacto respect for them at best. At worst, you'd see a might-makes-right war of all against all.
Or we could see a mutual, defacto respect for collective property rights.

You seem to think this is favourable for the poor, and you're deluded. Do you think no one would think of taking advantage of the situation? Yes, the poor may steal property form the rich. And then someone will steal it from them. Stealing isn't something only the impoverished do.
There are many people in the world who cannot find enough food. The ability to steal food from the rich would greatly benefit them, since they would then proceed to eat that food before anyone else could steal it from them in turn.

Obviously, in the absence of property rights one couldn't expect to be able to keep a diamond ring very long. But the poor have much more pressing concerns than diamond rings.

The Soviet Union had an absolutely massive public sector. Does this mean you're admitting it was socialist?
Alright, I spoke too rashly. An all-encompassing public sector is not the only determinant of socialism - but it is the only determinant of socialism that is part of the measurements made for the index of economic freedom. There are two other determinants of socialism: democracy and economic equality. The index of economic freedom measures neither of them.

A socialist society is one in which all the means of production are owned by a single, democratically controlled institution (which may or may not be the same as the state), and in which all political and economic decisions are made through broadly democratic procedures, and in which there is a high degree of economic and social equality.

The Soviet Union doesn't adequately meet those criteria, but it was of course closer to them than most other societies. It wouldn't call the USSR socialist, but I could call it quasi-socialist.

Caclulating economic freedom based on historical records is presumably impossible?
Not impossible - it's just that no one has actually done it (at least not to my knowledge). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Was there any attempt to extend the coverage of the economic freedom index back in time? I know of none.

The natural rights. The economic effects are what follow.
Good. So we know where we stand. In that case the economic effects of capitalism are irrelevant to your argument.

I'll respond with two questions of my own:

"If socialism harms the poor, would you support it?"

"If fascism was the best political system, would you support it?"
1. Maybe. Define "harm."

2. Define "best."

Demogorgon

18th June 2008, 02:00

There was more in some areas and less in others. But there are so many other differences between the world now and then that it is an entirely irrelevant comparison.
Hardly, the existence of new technology has allowed for freedoms now that were not possible then, but we also have many freedoms now that people could have had then but didn't. There are few freedoms held then (besides the freedom to hold huge amounts of power over those below you) that are not still held now.

Only because you assume that correlation is causation, the sloppiest of all methods of reasoning. Since you are claiming that minarchism infringes liberty "by definition," I suggest presenting a deductive argument rather than an empirical one.
I do not assume correlation is causation. Rather I am saying the expansion of the welfare state is the reason for the increase in freedom. You wish me to argue in the abstract, however that divorces the argument from the real world. However, since you asked:

Real freedom (as opposed to narrowly defined freedom designed to help an argument) is the ability to do what one wishes to do. A constraint on freedom is therefore anything that prevents one from doing something that one wishes to do.

In a capitalist society there are all sorts of things that prevent one from wishing to do as one wishes. The creation of a welfare state removes more of these than it creates. This is empirically true, people quite simply could do far more in 1955 than they could in 1935 and not just because of new technology either.

Therefore a minarchist state is by definition an infringement on liberty because it fails to remove the constraints on action that it could.

pusher robot

18th June 2008, 02:34

I do not assume correlation is causation. Rather I am saying the expansion of the welfare state is the reason for the increase in freedom. You wish me to argue in the abstract, however that divorces the argument from the real world. However, since you asked:

Real freedom (as opposed to narrowly defined freedom designed to help an argument) is the ability to do what one wishes to do. A constraint on freedom is therefore anything that prevents one from doing something that one wishes to do.

In a capitalist society there are all sorts of things that prevent one from wishing to do as one wishes. The creation of a welfare state removes more of these than it creates. This is empirically true, people quite simply could do far more in 1955 than they could in 1935 and not just because of new technology either.

Therefore a minarchist state is by definition an infringement on liberty because it fails to remove the constraints on action that it could.

That is admittedly a much better argument, and it is harder to argue against without resorting to axioms about the meaning of freedom and liberty, but I would counter in several ways:

First, to dispute the notion that liberty consists of anything more than the prevention of interference with an individual doing whatever he could do in the state of nature, less only those things that are necessary to ensure the same prevention for others. Thus, things like health care cannot be essential to "liberty" because "health care" is not something that a man finds in nature. It is rather something he must work to obtain, as it is in a free society. My rationale for this definition is that anything contrary is inherently contradictory; if a person must be provided with something by another person in order to be free, then that constrains the provider. The end result is a society in which everyone is provided with everything they need to do whatever they want, while also constrained by the neediest individuals in society to provide to them that which the providers may not desire to provide - a contradiction.

Second, the historical comparisons are again invalid because you have not demonstrated in any way that increases in social liberty are caused by decreases in economic liberty. It could well be the opposite; or there could be other factors, such as technology-driven cultural change, or armed combat with a genocidal fascist regime, or the prospect of nuclear annihilation, that caused both. There are an almost infinite number of factors you can't control for to demonstrate your alleged causation.

Finally, the minarchist state infringes on liberty, as any state must, but only to the least extent possible. While it certainly could remove more constraints for some, it could only do so by increasing constraints on others. This would not maximize liberty. It would be, in fact, unjust.

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2008, 02:50

Kronos

18th June 2008, 02:52

You know, I think the consumer culture has affected the psychology of the human species to a point where any significant change in the nature of its social life- specifically concerning property and social discourse among classes- would result in a suddenly dull and emotionally lethargic animal. Think about it.

It is as if a person wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't doing business, whether as a capitalist or proletariat, to get money to own property. If this aspect of social life is the most prominent, in the sense that life revolves around business and work, there would be radical changes in the routines of culture.

Could it be said that the human animal must have a medium through which it can compete while also cooperating, and what relations in society must be allowed for such competition?

I think that a private property system must be maintained, and I think in a socialist system this can happen. Granted, there are no private businesses, but there is a consumer market, and the competition between workers to make higher wages. Is this not enough to keep the drive to compete alive so that the human animal is not suddenly void of all incentive to do anything?

However, if you look at the context of the consumer culture, its discourse in the market, you will see also that different classes must exist so that certain commodities are considered more valuable. If a commodity of a certain "brand", in the case of the state produced two different brands of product with one being "better" than the other, for reasons not purely aesthetic, what would be the incentive to buy it rather than the other? Not only the fact that it is better, but also the fact that one consumer merely has something of a better quality than another person.

This is the origins of the fetishism attributed to the consumer discourse in the market of private property at different prices and different "models" of a similar product. People cannot not feel better than another if they have enough money to buy the better product...since it would imply generally that the person is a higher paid worker than himself.

Here, even though the state owns all means of production, and no capitalist exists, there is still a kind of "property capitalism", or "consumerism", rather, that produces similar conflicts in sociological circumstances as the conflicts produced in its economics. No longer classes such as bourgeois or proletariat, but classes that arrange themselves in a competition for being the better asset to society. This is indirectly inferred by people, I would think, and the same class alienations would exist.

Still a socialist system with a polymarket (I just made that up), which means the production of commodities of the same genre but better or worse in quality, would create less severe forms of social conflict.

The same incentive is in this system, only, the end of the means, the desire to have wealth, is achieved not through making capital, but working for a state which paid you a high wage so that you could buy the "better" product of whatever you were buying.

I don't see how the "existential" conditions are much different concerning the psychology of man in society, his senses of alienation, estrangement, solitude, etc., that originate, that must originate, in some kind of sense of inferiority in the presence of the Other.

Inferior as in what? Being less? Having less? I think it is a synthesis of the two- having less is translated into being less, insofar, again, as being a more expensive asset to society, which means that the state deems you more important simply because it pays you more money for your work.

There is no escape from the competitive nature of man in the discourse of aesthetic fetishism. In either case, there is an association between personal importance and the extent, and value, of property.

A case of the experience of alienation can occur even in a socialist system. Imagine that there are no capitalists, so nobody is exploiting anyone, so nobody can hold the other in contempt (as we do here now in capitalism). The same feelings of jealousy, envy, embarrassment, shame, spite and such, would exist between people. No?

Unless there is a radical change in the psychology of the human being- a fundamental shift in its sentiment and sense of human "equality"- there will be dissonant existential forms of alienation. Even if we take away the value of objects as commodities (clear the false ideology of fetishism), there would remain the value of the person; higher paid workers will be among a different class than lower paid workers.

And why would a socialist state have an incentive to produce a better quality commodity of a same genre if it weren't only to keep alive the consumer competition...which in a circular fashion generates the incentive to learn and master a profession.

If there were nothing but volkswagons...nobody would feel cool.

Gotta go, the damn shop is closing.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2008, 03:21

Yes, I think Demogorgon hit the nail on the head. That is the same way I look at it when I look at it from a philosophical standpoint.

I'd add that corporations are legal entities, actually created by the government, and thus they are likely themselves governments. An anarchist, perhaps even a Marxist, would claim that they have a monopoly on legal rights and the government has given the a monopoly to determine when it is OK to use force (when America was more laissez-fare, and I think in Britain as well, there were private corporate armies -- not quite sure if this went down in England though).

Thus, any attempt to use the government to appropriate them more laws and "rights" is not minarchism, but big government. I guess colonial slavery was small government if we look at it through the lenses of a Libertarian, but in reality, it was a horrible tyranny, much like capitalism.

Social democracy has opened up more options and, it seems, capitalism itself even functions better within it.

The only thing I agree with in pusher_robot's post is that weakening the state for some is strengthening it for others, the exact reason why people should oppose minarchism if they capitalism is tyranny.

Kronos: also an interesting post, but how do you get people thinking about the psychological (most likely negative) affects of capitalism?

IcarusAngel

18th June 2008, 03:28

Demogorgon

18th June 2008, 03:30

First, to dispute the notion that liberty consists of anything more than the prevention of interference with an individual doing whatever he could do in the state of nature, less only those things that are necessary to ensure the same prevention for others. Thus, things like health care cannot be essential to "liberty" because "health care" is not something that a man finds in nature. It is rather something he must work to obtain, as it is in a free society. My rationale for this definition is that anything contrary is inherently contradictory; if a person must be provided with something by another person in order to be free, then that constrains the provider. The end result is a society in which everyone is provided with everything they need to do whatever they want, while also constrained by the neediest individuals in society to provide to them that which the providers may not desire to provide - a contradiction.What is so important about the state of nature? What is the state of nature anyway? Everyone has a different conception of what it is. At any rate, there is no particular reason to regard it as being free, even by Libertarian standards. I mean if one is accused of a crime, then one would hope for a fair trial in front of an impartial jury, no? Fair trials and impartial juries are not to be found in any conception of the state of nature I know of.

The truth is that is very arbitry. I mean should I be free to consume alcohol, should I wish to do so? In most views of the state of nature I can do that, unless we are talking about a state so primitive that there is no means to produce it. So presumably I am free to do that by your conception. Suppose I wish to be cured of a disease, you have said I am not free to do that in a state of nature. Why any difference?

You can say of course that freedom cannot be about compelling others to do anything to boost another's freedom. That is nonsense. There is no such thing as absolute maximum freedom. There is always going to be a trade off. If we abolished the entire welfare state along with public education and so forth the very wealthy would probably have more freedom, but everyone else would have less. There is a huge trade off there, despite the view you are putting forth that it would be maximising freedom. What we have to find is an acceptable trade off. This trade off should be, in my view, something close to each person having an equal amount of freedom and that this equal amount be as high as it again. In other words each person should have as close as practical the ability to do as they wish as all others.

Second, the historical comparisons are again invalid because you have not demonstrated in any way that increases in social liberty are caused by decreases in economic liberty. It could well be the opposite; or there could be other factors, such as technology-driven cultural change, or armed combat with a genocidal fascist regime, or the prospect of nuclear annihilation, that caused both. There are an almost infinite number of factors you can't control for to demonstrate your alleged causation.
You are attempting to frame things the way you wish them to be framed. I am not arguing for what I see as a decrease in economic liberty. I see economic liberty as being the right to have democratic control of ones workplace, the right to have all one needs that can be provided and as fair a share of what one wants as possible taking into account circumstances and contribution and so forth. I say maximise that and you will also maximise social freedom.

That out of the way, it is quite disengenuous to try and claim that economic changes had no impact on the change in social freedom. You can see it trivially even in mainstream politics. The bourgeoisie parties that supported welfare states also increased social freedoms. In every case in Western Europe it was parties who pushed strongly for the welfare state that abolished the death penalty (arguably West Germany is the exception because of the weird politiking that went on there, but let's leave that aside) or legalised homosexuality in the countries where it was not already legal and introduced all sorts of other liberal reforms.

It was most dramatically seen in France when Mitterand came to power in 1981. France had had decades of Conservative Government previously and when Mitteran came to power with a socialist/communist coalition the right wanted to frame that as a threat to liberty. For the first three years of his presidency, before the right turn, Mitterand probably implemented the most left wing programme ever seen from a bourgeoisie politician but in addition to his various nationalisations and wealth redistribution he increased social freedom at an incredible rate, removing state restrictions on the press, abolishing the death penalty, decentralised the government, removed the restrictions on public demonstration and so forth.

While that is the most dramatic example, the same was clear across the world. In every cases when voters voted for the more left wing party they also got more social freedom. There is a reason for that. I am not of course saying that to praise the left wing parties, they went nowhere ner far enough on either economic or social matters, but they do show a trend

Finally, the minarchist state infringes on liberty, as any state must, but only to the least extent possible. While it certainly could remove more constraints for some, it could only do so by increasing constraints on others. This would not maximize liberty. It would be, in fact, unjust.Why would it be unjust? When some people have far more liberty than others taking away a relatively small amount of freedom from them to give much more freedom to everybody else is entirely just.

pusher robot

18th June 2008, 03:41

Problem: The amount of liberty provided by the state of nature - that is to say, the extent to which a person could pursue his goals and desires in nature in the absence of other human beings - is absolutely insufficient and unacceptable for the overwhelming majority of people. No. The amount of liberty in the state of nature is absolute. Literally everything is permitted because no power exists to constrain. Thomas Hobbes, who essentially invented the term, explained it:

Right Of Nature What
The RIGHT OF NATURE, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale,
is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe,
for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life;
and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement,
and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.

Liberty What
By LIBERTY, is understood, according to the proper signification
of the word, the absence of externall Impediments: which Impediments,
may oft take away part of a mans power to do what hee would;
but cannot hinder him from using the power left him, according as
his judgement, and reason shall dictate to him.

The state of nature cannot be used as a measure of anything desirable, because the state of nature is, in itself, extremely undesirable.

No, but I am not measuring against "the state of nature," I am measuring against "the liberty available in the state of nature," which I have demonstrated is the broadest possible non-contradictory definition of the term.

Why should we strive to preserve the quality and quantity of liberty present in a state of nature when, in fact, hardly anyone would like to live in such a state?

You are trying to slide a hidden assumption in here: that people are not capable of cooperating unless compelled to. This is ridiculous. You have not explained why, given the maximum possible amount of liberty less that necessary to provide basic for non-interference (civil liberty), men are not capable of avoiding the state of nature. Not even Hobbes in his argument for the Leviathan believed that, and I think Hobbes is too uncharitable!

To clarify: I am not arguing for the state of nature. Only an idiot would, which is why most people, who are not idiots, would use their civil liberty to cooperate to mutual benefit, thus avoiding the state of nature. See?

It is logically possible to increase your freedom in certain ways and decrease it in other ways, while maintaining a positive net effect. In other words, it is conceivable that a certain policy would reduce your options in some areas to a lesser extent than it increases your options in other areas.

Perhaps, if you take "freedom" to mean "power;" but I am not so arrogant as to universalize my preferences onto everybody else, nor would I care to have theirs universalized unto me.

Demogorgon

18th June 2008, 03:49

No. The amount of liberty in the state of nature is absolute. Literally everything is permitted because no power exists to constrain.
You are begging the question here. We are quite adamant that the state of nature is not absolute liberty because liberty is not simply predicated upon what is or is not banned. For instance it is perfectly legal for me to buy a Ferrari, but I cannot do so because I do not have the money. I cannot be considered free to do it. On the other hand it is illegal for me to buy Cannabis but I am still pretty much free to do so. In practice the law cannot stop me, the only thing preventing me from getting Cannabis is my lack of desire to use it. Consequently despite one of the above being allowed and the other banned. I am in fact more free to acquire the banned one.

One has to play word games or define freedom in a counter-intuitive manner in order to get around this. Taken sensibly, freedom is not merely about things not being banned and therefore the state of nature is not absolute freedom.

Perhaps, if you take "freedom" to mean "power;" but I am not so arrogant as to universalize my preferences onto everybody else, nor would I care to have theirs universalized unto me.
On the contrary, you are doing just that. You are presuming that everybody wishes to live according to your definition of freedom. Why should we wish to do so?

pusher robot

18th June 2008, 04:06

You are begging the question here. We are quite adamant that the state of nature is not absolute liberty because liberty is not simply predicated upon what is or is not banned. Well, then you are using a non-canonical definition. I quoted you a primary source. Feel free to argue against it. But you can't simply assert that I'm playing word games because you disagree with the definition as provided by the inventor of the concept.

For instance it is perfectly legal for me to buy a Ferrari, but I cannot do so because I do not have the money. I cannot be considered free to do it.You have the necessary liberty required to purchase a Ferrari. You do not have the power to do so. As a result, you may be said to be "free" to do so or not depending on what definition of "free" you prefer.

On the other hand it is illegal for me to buy Cannabis but I am still pretty much free to do so. In practice the law cannot stop me, the only thing preventing me from getting Cannabis is my lack of desire to use it. Consequently despite one of the above being allowed and the other banned. I am in fact more free to acquire the banned one.
You have more power to do so, but are not delegated the associated liberty, which is why you must by definition do so outside the purview of your civil society. But let's not introduce the additional complexity of the differences between law de jure and de facto. This is complex enough, I think.

One has to play word games or define freedom in a counter-intuitive manner in order to get around this. Taken sensibly, freedom is not merely about things not being banned and therefore the state of nature is not absolute freedom.I am aware of these competing notions of "freedom." Once again, you are projecting your straw men onto me. I argued that the state of nature accords maximum "liberty." Not "freedom." I do not use the terms interchangeably.

On the contrary, you are doing just that. You are presuming that everybody wishes to live according to your definition of freedom. Why should we wish to do so?No, I am trying to minimize interference, which results in the widest possible ability for people to determine for themselves what freedoms are most important, and pursue those, even if their notions are diametrically opposed to each other. I am trying to provide the broadest possible basis for people to cooperate.

Demogorgon

18th June 2008, 04:39

Well, then you are using a non-canonical definition. I quoted you a primary source. Feel free to argue against it. But you can't simply assert that I'm playing word games because you disagree with the definition as provided by the inventor of the concept.
Hobbes does not have a monopoly on definitions. He claimed that his conception of the state of nature was absolute liberty, however many thinkers after him defined the state of nature in an entirely different manner and many more disputed the notion that it could be considered free at all

You have the necessary liberty required to purchase a Ferrari. You do not have the power to do so. As a result, you may be said to be "free" to do so or not depending on what definition of "free" you prefer.
You have more power to do so, but are not delegated the associated liberty, which is why you must by definition do so outside the purview of your civil society. But let's not introduce the additional complexity of the differences between law de jure and de facto. This is complex enough, I think.
The distinction is important however. My De Facto rights are more important to me than my De Jure rights. The same principle holds true elsewhere too. Gordon Brown and not Queen Elizabeth is in charge of the British State regardless of the constitutional niceties. I always look for what is the case in the De Facto sense to understand what really is.

I am aware of these competing notions of "freedom." Once again, you are projecting your straw men onto me. I argued that the state of nature accords maximum "liberty." Not "freedom." I do not use the terms interchangeably.Now here we have yet another contradiction. All I can do here is simply ask you to explain precisely what you mean by the two.

No, I am trying to minimize interference, which results in the widest possible ability for people to determine for themselves what freedoms are most important, and pursue those, even if their notions are diametrically opposed to each other. I am trying to provide the broadest possible basis for people to cooperate.
No, it doesn't. It only allows for your conception of freedom. It does not allow for our conception of freedom to function. There will be some overlap, but many of the necessary preconditions for liberty according to us simply will not be present. We hit a snag here, if you believe you are not free, but for your conditions of freedom being met you cannot hold yourself to be free under socialism, but similarly we cannot consider ourselves free under capitalism. It seems pointless here to continue throwing assertions at one another that our definition is correct. Which society is more free is ultimately going to come down to which of our societies gives the other party the right to break off and do their own thing. You will immediately say capitalism because we "can buy land and build our own communes" except that is not remotely close to what we wish to do. Socialism cannot exist in a capitalist society. Should however capitalists under socialism really want to continue (absent workers to exploit mind you) they can in principle be allowed to leave society and do their own thing. Trotsky even suggested that if America were to go Communist a choice portion of land should be set aside for anybody wishing to continue to pursue the old system to go, leaving everyone else to get on with Communism. The practicalities of that, I do not know, but it at least a possibility as opposed to socialism being impossible in capitalism.

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2008, 13:51

No. The amount of liberty in the state of nature is absolute. Literally everything is permitted because no power exists to constrain.
Everything may be permitted, but that doesn't mean you actually can do anything you want. Being permitted to do something is worthless to me if I don't have the ability to do it.

I don't care if I am permitted to fly like a bird or defy gravity, because I have no ability to do those things. Likewise, I don't care if I am permitted to become a billionaire or the President of the United States, because I have no ability to do anything of that sort.

No, but I am not measuring against "the state of nature," I am measuring against "the liberty available in the state of nature," which I have demonstrated is the broadest possible non-contradictory definition of the term.
Why is "the liberty available in the state of nature" desirable?

You are trying to slide a hidden assumption in here: that people are not capable of cooperating unless compelled to. This is ridiculous.
No it's not. Two words: Prisoner's Dilemma.

You have not explained why, given the maximum possible amount of liberty less that necessary to provide basic for non-interference (civil liberty), men are not capable of avoiding the state of nature. Not even Hobbes in his argument for the Leviathan believed that, and I think Hobbes is too uncharitable!
But then again, Hobbes never knew game theory. I am essentially basing my argument on the Prisoner's Dilemma principle: Given the maximum possible amount of liberty less that necessary to provide basic for non-interference, people will fail to cooperate effectively and achieve their desired collective goals because the individual will always have an incentive to "cheat" the group. What is individually rational is not necessarily collectively rational.

I can easily come up with examples of laws that I consider good for society and myself - laws that I support - but which I would violate if there was no one to enforce them, because I would expect other people to violate them as well and I wouldn't want to be the fool who cooperates when others cheat.

The provision of public goods falls into the above category. But also the provision of any service which most individuals (a) believe should be provided to themselves and everyone else, but (b) would not pay for unless compelled to do so. Did you notice, for example, that most people support environmental regulations by the state but would not be willing to voluntarily cut down on their own carbon emissions unless compelled to do so?

It is possible for me to say: "I think X is desirable. But I don't trust other people to do it voluntarily, therefore I won't do it voluntarily. I wish I were forced to do it, alongside everyone else."

Perhaps, if you take "freedom" to mean "power;" but I am not so arrogant as to universalize my preferences onto everybody else, nor would I care to have theirs universalized unto me.
Freedom is power. I am free to the extent that I have the power to do the things I want to do. That is the only "freedom" that matters. Any other definition of freedom is worthless. A man stuck at the bottom of a pit in a libertarian society is not "free" just because no one is interfering with him. Presumably he would be more than willing to give up some of his negative freedom for the power to get out of that pit.

pusher robot

18th June 2008, 14:45

No it's not. Two words: Prisoner's Dilemma.

But then again, Hobbes never knew game theory. I am essentially basing my argument on the Prisoner's Dilemma principle: Given the maximum possible amount of liberty less that necessary to provide basic for non-interference, people will fail to cooperate effectively and achieve their desired collective goals because the individual will always have an incentive to "cheat" the group. What is individually rational is not necessarily collectively rational.

Not so, because in the real world of repeated transactions, what you have is an iterative prisoner's dilemma. Decades of research have proven that when the number of repetitions is open-ended, it is possible for players to sustain the cooperative outcome. If you are interested, this is a good summary of why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dil emma

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2008, 00:35

Not so, because in the real world of repeated transactions, what you have is an iterative prisoner's dilemma. Decades of research have proven that when the number of repetitions is open-ended, it is possible for players to sustain the cooperative outcome. If you are interested, this is a good summary of why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dil emma
I am aware of that. But it requires the players to know who is cheating, so they can punish those cheaters in future games.

I don't have the faintest clue who is breaking laws, rules, or behavioral guidelines that I consider important - so I can't punish them. In order for the cooperative outcome to be sustainable in a libertarian society, an enormous amount of information would have to be made public; information about the daily economic activities of each and every individual. We would have to know who is paying whom to do what; who is buying what from whom; who is or isn't donating to charity, and how much they are donating; and so on and so forth.

That is simply not feasible, not to mention extremely intrusive.

Dean

19th June 2008, 02:24

Hardly, the existence of new technology has allowed for freedoms now that were not possible then, but we also have many freedoms now that people could have had then but didn't. There are few freedoms held then (besides the freedom to hold huge amounts of power over those below you) that are not still held now.

Communism isn't blind hedonism, nor is the definition of freedom. It is a wider psychological orientation, because this is quite clearly a psychological issue.

By your logic, anti-social anarchy where all are given as many toys as possible is a greater freedom than an active, associated communal structure. I oppose that concept on fundamental terms.

I may go into this more later when I can find some literature I have which attacks this problem specifically.

Demogorgon

19th June 2008, 02:31

Communism isn't blind hedonism, nor is the definition of freedom. It is a wider psychological orientation, because this is quite clearly a psychological issue.

By your logic, anti-social anarchy where all are given as many toys as possible is a greater freedom than an active, associated communal structure. I oppose that concept on fundamental terms.

I may go into this more later when I can find some literature I have which attacks this problem specifically.

Either you have misread or I have miswritten. I didn't say, or at least mean to say, that more technology is more freedom, I simply acknowledged Pusher Robot's point that technological changes have altered the situation Ny point is that we are more free now than in the nineteenth century because there is less absolute poverty and the worst off are not as disenfranchised as they were then.

RGacky3

19th June 2008, 03:36

About Pusher Robots argument on freedom and the such.

Its true that recieving Health care is'nt based on Liberty perse.

But that being said, Liberty is'nt the end all of human relationships, out of liberty comes human solidarity, which is as natural as the need for liberty, and out of that comes things like health care, for free in an communist society.

Capitalists (especially anarcho-Capitalists) focus on the idea that you'll ahve to force people to cooperate. Which is comepletely untrue, history shows us that in general, humans are social animals, humans are also moral animals (as far as I know the only), which means that the state of nature, contrary to hobbes theory, is one of Solidarity, without hiarchies or property, there would be no reason for someone to collect more than he needs for a comfortable life. Unlike today where we have hiarchies and where property means power.

The State of nature cannot be judged on the state in a Capitalist society, you have to take in the factors that effect Capitalist society (Greed for example, can mostly be traced back to Capitalism rather that the state of Nature.)

Tungsten

20th June 2008, 20:59

And here we have it straight from the horses mouth, for all your tantrums when I accused you off being a fascist earlier you have out proven me right with this extreme authoritarian statement.
Authoritarian?

Last century you openly could smoke pot and snort coke without legal penalties. You could buy just about anything and you could do it at any age.

None of this has anything to do with fascism anyway.

That you can honestly think that Victorian Britain where employers had near absolute power over their employees,
Not was was referring to. "Absolute power" over employees is called slavery and we've established that I'm not in favour of that.

where non-property owners were denied the right to vote, where, for a long time industrial action by workers was banned, where working class people could not expect to live past eighteen,
Eighteen? Are you kidding? Try 35-40 the same as everywhere else at the time.

where children were forced down the mines, where the vast majority of people had no autoomy over their own lives was more free than modern Britain is disgusting.
Increased productivity is the reason we don't have children down mines today, not because "nice" socialists came along and banned it. Child labour still persists in the poorest countries out of economic necessity, where productivity is low and labour intensive.

To you freedom is nothing more than the removal of limitations on the power of those at the top of society. Frankly you disgust me.
Well your definition of freedom is slavery and you ideology is evidently shit anyway, so why should I care if I disgust you?

-------

Economic inequality is a suboptimal distribution of wealth.
Suboptimal? How the hell is 100% equality "optimal" and how optimal defined?

However rich the average person is, she would be even richer if wealth was distributed more equally.
No they wouldn't; quite the opposite. Prices would increase to match spending power and increased labour costs.

Even if everyone was already living in luxury, happiness could be increased by making the distribution of wealth more egalitarian.
Happy for those recieving, but not the people losing out, which is likely to be the majority of us.

So you're saying it's ok to sell oneself into a lifetime of servitude?

That is all we need to know. We call that slavery. We don't care what you call it.
Given that your idea of servitude/slavery is "having to work for a living", even though no force is involved, it doesn't really matter what you call it, either.

Really? Don't you libertarians believe that wealth can be magically created if object X changes hands from a person who wants it less to a person who wants it more?That's not magic, it's called supply and demand. Now how about answering the question?

And if we don't want your so-called "free society?"
And if you don't want to give up slavery?

But that's not what I'm interested in. Suppose the government was not libertarian and wanted to keep its property. Would it have a right to do so, according to your philosophy?
As far as I'm concerned, if the government isn't libertatian, is doesn't have the right to be in power, never mind keep property.

Welcome to the wonderful world of consequentialist ethics, where you can no longer apply a simple dogmatic mantra to every situation, and must instead judge for yourself whether the good consequences of an action (= increased human happiness) outweigh the bad consequences (= more suffering).

Happiness is good, suffering is evil, and an action is good to the extent that it produces more happiness than suffering.
Gang rape: Several people happy, one person unhappy = Net increase in happiness.
Lyinching: Several people kill property owner, take everything he has and divide it among themselves = Net increase in happiness.
The war in Iraq: 300 million Americans who need oil etc. vs 27 million Iraqis who have oil etc. etc. etc.

Welcome to the world of consequeltialist ethics, where apparently anything goes.

Mmmkay. Suppose I shoot you. That very same act can be either good or evil depending on something you did to me some time in the past?
What do you think the law courts are there for? The only reason for shooting someone yourself ought to be self defence. Anything else is just vigilantism.

Because this government would be democratic, while most Kremlin governments were not democratic.
Ah and you think making, say, the soviet union democratic would have made the forced collectivisation and forced labour camps nicer.

There are many people in the world who cannot find enough food. The ability to steal food from the rich would greatly benefit them, since they would then proceed to eat that food before anyone else could steal it from them in turn.
The obvious problem with this argument is that the places where many people don't have enough food is where there are no rich to steal it off.

Good. So we know where we stand. In that case the economic effects of capitalism are irrelevant to your argument.
Are you trying to create a cause-effect dichotomy?

Edit: Don't answer. I'm bored of this thread and my point has been made.

Kwisatz Haderach

20th June 2008, 21:27

Gang rape: Several people happy, one person unhappy = Net increase in happiness.
Lyinching: Several people kill property owner, take everything he has and divide it among themselves = Net increase in happiness.
The war in Iraq: 300 million Americans who need oil etc. vs 27 million Iraqis who have oil etc. etc. etc.
Straw man.

Utilitarianism is about "the greatest good for the greatest number", not "a little bit of good for the greatest number and suffering for everyone else". In other words, you have to take into account the amount of happiness/suffering involved for each person, not just the number of people involved. Suppose, for example, that you do something which results in 1 person being tortured and 10 people getting an ice cream each. Now, the number of people whose happiness has increased (10) is greater than the number of people who suffer (1). But no one in his right mind would argue that net happiness has increased. Obviously the suffering caused by torture is greater than the happiness provided by eating 10 ice creams.

To this you might retort, "that could make sense in such obvious cases, but you can't measure happiness, so who are you to say that the happiness of the rapists in the gang rape case, for example, is not greater than the suffering of the victim?"

My answer: It's true that you can't measure happiness in general. But every person can measure his or her personal happiness - indeed, this is one of the fundamental axioms of economics. So we can determine whether an action causes net happiness or net suffering by asking individual people what they would feel if they got to enjoy all the rewards but also suffer all the bad consequences of that action. To settle the gang rape case, for instance, we might ask people, "if you get to rape someone X number of times, but in exchange you are then yourself raped, has your happiness increased or decreased?" I have absolute confidence that every person on the planet would answer that their happiness would decrease in such a situation, no matter how high X is. Therefore people have evaluated the happiness vs. suffering of rape and concluded that rape produces net suffering, no matter how large the gang of rapists. Therefore rape is evil.

Likewise with your other examples - you can determine whether they produce net happiness or suffering by putting the following questions to a referendum:

"If you get to kill X number of property owners and take a share of their property, but then you are yourself killed by others and your property stolen, has your happiness increased or decreased?"

"If you get to invade X number of smaller countries to take their natural resources, but then your country is itself invaded for the same reason by a greater power, has your happiness increased or decreased?"

Take a wild guess as to what 99% of people might answer to these questions.

Ah and you think making, say, the soviet union democratic would have made the forced collectivisation and forced labour camps nicer.
Yeah, because it's a pretty safe bet that most Soviet citizens didn't want forced collectivisation or forced labour camps, so they would not have existed in a more democratic USSR.