Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[Diezel]

Suddenly:And he never will. The origin of ownership rights is a taboo subject in Libertarian circles.

That may be, but I will answer from the basis of my own thoughts.

These days, about the only real way an individual has rights to land is through a legal purchase.

But classically, ownership rights could be gotten by three means:

1) Purchase
2) Initial Claim (Discovery)
3) Use of Force

Since there isn't much land to discover anymore, #2 is out. And since #3 can only be done by governments, that is out too. And that is now being viewed as a crime by the international community. So, nowadays, you can only purchase land.

As I said before, Libertarians assume that humans are rational. And hence, their simplistic philosophy is just as shakey as Marxism.

Yes, you have said it, but you have yet to prove it.

 

[Suddenly]

I didn't read the scenario, but I will answer the question (hopefully understanding the scenario):

The landowner does not have to do anything. He can let you rot and die. You have no rights to his resources, you are on your own to do what you can to survive.

Yep, harsh.

Which was my point. The scenerio as crafted actually raised some issues as to whether I really had a right to "own" the island. If I do, the conclusion you suggest is the proper one under libertarian principles, harsh or no.

Unfortunately, we went off on a huge tangent as shanek couldn't just say what you just said.

 

[Diezel]

This is the ONLY type of proactive approach that could be taken, violating rights? [/B]

Mine was an example to illustrate the difference between "pro-active" and "preventive". Can you give me another approach that you consider "pro-active"?

 

[Diezel]

Diezel,

If people are selfish, why do we (as in "Danes", "Swedes", "Norwegians", etc) have welfare states?

Because you have elected people into power that take personal profit from helping others. Some desire money, some desire that warm fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone out and feel they have taken the moral high road.

Either way, it is still selfish. And from what I hear, not everyone in those states are estatic about it. If we weren't selfish, nobody would have a problem with it.

 

[Suddenly]

That may be, but I will answer from the basis of my own thoughts.

These days, about the only real way an individual has rights to land is through a legal purchase.

But classically, ownership rights could be gotten by three means:

1) Purchase
2) Initial Claim (Discovery)
3) Use of Force

Since there isn't much land to discover anymore, #2 is out. And since #3 can only be done by governments, that is out too. And that is now being viewed as a crime by the international community. So, nowadays, you can only purchase land.

What we are talking about is an initial acqusition, more of a philosophical "state of nature" type question.
At one point in time there is just people and stuff.
Then, there are people who "own" stuff.

The question is what gives them the right to "own" things, and considering that the essence of "ownership" is the exclusive right of use, how can this be squared with a non-initiation of force principle?

Since to "own" is to have the right to exclude, it seems to me that at some point you are up and declaring that the other person no longer has a right to something. I really have no problem with that, but it does seem contrary to the principle that "thou shall not initiate force" that libertarians like so much.

Then, we ask if it is logical to use a principle to justify property rights when that same principle is violated by the very genesis of all ownership?

 

[Diezel]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the same thing, just said a different way. For me to consider Libertarianism a viable form of government, it cannot simply ignore marginalized people and say "Oh well, let them work it out themselves, or die in the gutter, too bad."

Well, that is not quite a strawman, but close.

Libertarianism says "We will set up a government that creates a society that will give everyone an equal opportunity to do as much or as little as they want." It is up to the individual to make the decisions they need to make in order get where they want to be.

When I say that Libertarianism doesn't address the issue, I am saying that it leaves it up to the members of the society to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. Now, you take that as saying you are relying on them to do the right thing. No, it doesn't matter what they choose to do. Some will do the right thing, some will do the wrong thing. But it doesn't matter to the LP.

To *some* extent I agree, but I don't have a problem with taxation to help those who are needy. Or to provide services that would otherwise have to rely upon the private sector.

Private, local charities are the best equipped to "help those who are needy", because they live in their communities, they know the people and they can do the most help. I would much rather give my money to a private charity than to the government to decide who gets it.

Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

Given the choice, I would not. But don't worry, I won't be given that choice anytime soon.

 

[Diezel]

Which was my point. The scenerio as crafted actually raised some issues as to whether I really had a right to "own" the island. If I do, the conclusion you suggest is the proper one under libertarian principles, harsh or no.

Unfortunately, we went off on a huge tangent as shanek couldn't just say what you just said.

I see. See my post above as to how you have ownership.

And many people won't be as ready to admit that sometimes freedom can be cold as I am.

 

[Diezel]

What we are talking about is an initial acqusition, more of a philosophical "state of nature" type question.
At one point in time there is just people and stuff.
Then, there are people who "own" stuff.

The question is what gives them the right to "own" things, and considering that the essence of "ownership" is the exclusive right of use, how can this be squared with a non-initiation of force principle?

Since to "own" is to have the right to exclude, it seems to me that at some point you are up and declaring that the other person no longer has a right to something. I really have no problem with that, but it does seem contrary to the principle that "thou shall not initiate force" that libertarians like so much.

Then, we ask if it is logical to use a principle to justify property rights when that same principle is violated by the very genesis of all ownership?

Well, I don't think your hypothetical is valid then, for simple reason - you can't put Libertarianism to this type of test. It is a philosophy that was formed after most land was acquired and owned. So to put it through this test just won't work. It is putting the apple before the cart.

But I see why you want to do this and I will play it out for you. Notice my answer for how land was owned "classically"? Classically, use of force was a very common way to determine ownership.

Say you "claim" 2 acres of land. Now say someone wants that land. As a single person, you are only able to defend 1 acre of that land. So now you have lost an acre, but maintain 1 acre.

Scale this up into countries, not individuals. They claimed land in the name of countries, by the use of force - then sold that land to individuals, who now have claim of ownership.

And it must be noted that the "initiation of force" is directly identified at the individual - it says nothing of a Libertarian Nation initiating force in order to claim land from another nation. But inside that Libertarian Nation, you cannot initiate force in order to claim land.

So, you see, the hypothetical doesn't really work, because the initial acquisition of land is not at question. And you are trying to compare small scale human interactions with large scale governmental philosophies. This doesn’t work. Not everything that works on a small scale can work on a large scale and vice versus.

 

[Valmorian]

So, you see, the hypothetical doesn't really work, because the initial acquisition of land is not at question.

If the ownership of said land was gained through the use of force, how could Libertarianism consider that land to be owned by the individual who gained it that way?

The more I read about Libertarianism, the more ludicrous it sounds.

 

[Valmorian]

Mine was an example to illustrate the difference between "pro-active" and "preventive". Can you give me another approach that you consider "pro-active"?

Institute police patrols of the area.

Installation of obvious security cameras of particularly troublesome areas.

Investigate root causes of the graffiti, it might be because of bored kids, gangs, who knows? But investigation could lead to implementation of policies to help curb the behaviour that leads to the proliferation of graffiti.

There are other ways as well I'm sure..

 

[Diezel]

If the ownership of said land was gained through the use of force, how could Libertarianism consider that land to be owned by the individual who gained it that way?

The more I read about Libertarianism, the more ludicrous it sounds.

Again, the hypothetical is not valid, because Libertarianism is a philosophy that was developed after initation of force to gain land was already obsolete. You are trying to apply a concept to a situation Libertarianism was never meant to deal with.

Can we agree this scenario is never going to play out in today's world? Can we agree that it is just as ludicrous to try to apply an ideology to a situation that would have never happened at the time the ideology was developed, let alone any time after that?

It just doesn't work.

 

[Diezel]

Institute police patrols of the area.

Preventative, not proactive.

Installation of obvious security cameras of particularly troublesome areas.

Violates the rights of law abiding citizens their freedom of privacy. Even in a public place, a person has a right to be free of constant scrutiny of the government.

But...

A business has a right to protect its property, so if they put up cameras for that purpose, I support it.

Investigate root causes of the graffiti, it might be because of bored kids, gangs, who knows? But investigation could lead to implementation of policies to help curb the behaviour that leads to the proliferation of graffiti.

Your first part is preventative, your second part may be proactive, depending on what those policies are.

There are other ways as well I'm sure..

Sure. Some are proactive, some are preventative. I have no problem with preventative.

 

[specious_reasons]

by Valmorian
Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

by Diezel
Given the choice, I would not. But don't worry, I won't be given that choice anytime soon

If I am not representing the LP incorrectly, even the Libertarians allow giving up some freedom for enforcement. The LP does, for example, allow for the government's use of force to punish a criminal's intiation of force.

What it boils down to is a matter of degree.

Please, let me know if I am mischaracterizing the LP here.

On a related topic,
I don't know if I had recalled this before, but Harry Browne was on "Politically Incorrect" - I think it was during the '96 election. He posed a question, "Think of your favorite government program. Would you give it up to have no income tax?"

I thought about it, and thought of things like national defense, then decided that my answer was "no."

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

yes

 

[Suddenly]

Again, the hypothetical is not valid, because Libertarianism is a philosophy that was developed after initation of force to gain land was already obsolete. You are trying to apply a concept to a situation Libertarianism was never meant to deal with.

First, I am not discussing libertarian principles as being very practical and useful. I'm not, as they very well may be. What I dispute is the idea that "non-initiation of force" as a universal principle is consistant with ownership of property, real or personal. Just getting that out there.

Truth is not a time sensitive thing. Neither is land ownership. "Do not initiate force" is either a universal virtue or it isn't. Universal principles do not become obsolete, rather they would be disproven as "not universal." Anyway, saying first acquisition situations will never arise again is a huge assumption, and it still does not change that "do not initiate force" and initial acquisition are not compatible.

Now, there are many reasons to justify the initial ownership of land, but "do not initiate force" is not going to be one of them.

Can we agree this scenario is never going to play out in today's world? Can we agree that it is just as ludicrous to try to apply an ideology to a situation that would have never happened at the time the ideology was developed, let alone any time after that?

This sort of thing happens any time there is unowned land. It happened throughout human history. It will happen when people are shipwrecked together on a otherwise uninhabited island. It will happen again if space travel becomes a reality. Furthermore, this is a discussion of theory, not pragmatism.

It also is presently relevent. If all ownership derives from initiation of force, than to be true to a "non-initiation" of force principle you would have to abolish ownership of property, as all property is then umm .... theft, or at least reciept of stolen property.

Now, as pragmatists we aren't going to do that, but if one has a slavish dependance on the non-initiation of force as a universal principle, then I can't see a whole lot of choice.

It just doesn't work.

That the analysis is harmful to libertarian principles doesn't invalidate it. That was the point of the whole deal. Actually, what I'm saying isn't even an indictment of libertarianism, just that the central principle of the Libertarian Party is inconsistent with most of their positions w/r/t property.

 

[Diezel]

That the analysis is harmful to libertarian principles doesn't invalidate it. That was the point of the whole deal. Actually, what I'm saying isn't even an indictment of libertarianism, just that the central principle of the Libertarian Party is inconsistent with most of their positions w/r/t property.

But what I am saying is that it does not relate to libertarian principles, so it couldn't logically be harmful to their principles.

Also, you didn't address my point about non-initiation of force applying to only those inside an established Libertarian Nation.

But the most important point, going back to my first point, is that in your scenario, libertarianism would not apply - it is an ideology based on an established nation.

 

[Diezel]

I thought I would post a little more about my last point.

Your point that "truth is not time sensitive" is a straw man. What we are discussing is governmental politics. This is not a static subject, but a dynamic one. So what worked at one time, in one set of circumstances, will not neccesarily work at another time with another set of circumstances.

This is why I say your scenario is not valid, because you can't possibly try to apply libertarianism to a situtation it was never intended to deal with.

Say their are four people, two male and two female. They work things out and share everything. Now they have kids and they are all still in harmony. The kids have kids, they need privacy, so they start sectioning off their little pieces of island, so they can be private when they feel like it (it is human nature to want privacy at times.) Now they have just started a rudimentary "ownership" over different pieces of land. As this develops and the population grows, so too will the desire of the people to have their own little piece of land.

Once the population gets large enough, you need a way to deal with the people's desire to own their own little piece of land. At this point, libertarianism may start to apply, but not before.

To repeat myself, this is a dynamic subject and I don't think you can prove anything by trying to see what something that was meant to work further down the evolution does when thrown to the beginning of the evolution, where it was never intended to be.

 

[shanek]

This depends largely on your definition of "force" and "initiation."

Force: anything that stops someone from acting freely. Initiation: that act absent of which would have meant that there was no force at all.

These are questions you can't really answer.

I can answer them, and I have. And I'm really sick and tired of you and a small handful of others in this forum making me spend most of my time here repeating myself.

 

[shanek]

Of course it is!

How?

The problem, shanek, is that full-blown Libertarianism is purely reactionary.

No, it isn't, and I've given several examples of this in the forum. I gave one example in this very thread.

 

[shanek]

Libertarianism is relying upon the good nature of people to help one another then, and trusting that people will make rational decisions to do so.

And most people will do so. Even those arguing the other side here have admitted that. Their claim is that Libertarianism requires everyone to do so, and that just isn't the case.