Libertarianism and Inheritance

[Luke T.]

For those who think the government should take possession of a dead man's wealth, I ask, when Bill Gates dies, are you in favor of the government taking over Microsoft?

edited to add: Think "Patriot Act." Think "spyware."

 

[UserGoogol]

For those who think the government should take possession of a dead man's wealth, I ask, when Bill Gates dies, are you in favor of the government taking over Microsoft?

Not at all. Besides the fact that Bill Gates doesn't own controlling interest in Microsoft, it would be a dumb idea.

But just because something shouldn't be done doesn't mean it can't.

Uh, why is it irrelevant?

Your comment was relevant. A very reasonable analogy, although I'm not sure if it was entirely applicable. (Laws and rights are not the same thing, although maybe they should be.) What was irrelevant was my little pondering over whether people have a right to not be horribily offended.

Nooooo, it would be passed on to his progeny, just as it has been pretty much since the beginning of civilization, with or without governments.

Not really. It has been that way since the beginning of civilzation because other people have intervened. In a modern anarchy of a sort of Anarcho-capitalist flavor, for example, maybe the bank might have a preset policy that whenever its customers die, it sends the money to the heirs or the people predetermined to be the willed recipient of the money, in an attempt to attract customers. I don't know enough about history to know how it worked in the past. Although I do know that inheritance is often less than uncontested, as obscenely large inheritances have often had much debate over who should inherit it. Especially in things like monarchies and stuff.

It does to take them from his progeny.

P'raps. But I still don't think inheritance is automatic. The government isn't neccesarily the one to do it, but it still has to be transferred by someone for it to happen. If nobody intervenes, the money will just sit exactly where it was when the owner died and be never moved, ever. Moving money is intervening, unless I'm misinterpreting your usage.

So who does have a right to the money, and why?

Nobody. The owner is dead, and it's now free game, as far as rights are concerned. Of course, for practical reasons, we don't just allow deaths to become a free-for-all for the deceased's money, so society sets up various rules regarding the passing of the money after death to keep things orderly. But nobody's automatically entitled to it.

 

[Darat]

Where did I say anything of the kind?

I had posted:"So people are made unemployed, they can get another job, they shouldn't have been so dependent on the goodwill of someone else. Isn't that part of the ethos of a libertarian?"

To which you replied with a "no" e.g."No. Libertarians are all about goodwill. That's why we do so much charity work. But taking someone's money at gunpoint, no matter how rich they are, to give to someone, no matter how needy they are, is not goodwill.

I must have misunderstood the no.

 

[Reager]

Well, you didn't actually ask it of me before, but I'll give it a shot.

Not as far as I know. The living have a right to have legally binding agreements they entered into while alive be honored after their death.

Ah, but that there is not always a "legally binding agreement" in place when we are talking about inheritence.

It's not clear which "rights" you're talking about. If you're just referring to honoring a will or something, it probably has something to do with the obligation of anyone who agreed to distribute their estate according to their wishes,

Well I was referring to the possibility that the "natural" rights of a livin person to control his property extend beyond the individual's death. But the problem with the statement above is that, again, there is not always an agreement between anyone to do anything. In some states, I can draw up a perfectly valid will alone in my room.

coupled with the lack of any valid claim on the property in question that would supercede that of any designated heirs.

But there has to be a reason why we say the *designated* heirs have a better claim then anyone else. What is the basis for recognizing that a person should be able to control assets, in some cases years after they have died? I'm not saying I disagree with that, I specifically directed that question to proponents of natural rights to find out what their justification is. Thus far, I do'nt think any have answered.

Long enough to distribute the property in question sounds good to me.

To whatever extent that was specified by the deceased when they were still alive.

Suppose I die with $6 billion in cash and bequeath a dollar to every person on the planet?

They don't. The heirs are usually living, and if they inherit something they don't want, they are free to give it away.

Sure they do. Suppose I direct in my will that my 13 acres of woodland in Alabama be left to my son, provided he never erect a house on the land, if he does, the land will go to my daughter. Legally, I can do that.

From obligations others assumed while they were still alive, if it helps you get there.

Already addressed, see above.

Of course it does. Once again, if you're going to raise questions about the right not to have something done to you, it's perfectly legit to respond by asking what the right is of those doing it in the first place.

Have you come up with an answer yet?

No, I haven't because it is jumping two steps ahead of MY question. You're assuming that DEAD have a "right" not to have something done to them in the first place. And I'm asking where does that "right" come from? Is it a "natural" right? Is it granted by the state? Society?

Mike

 

[Darat]

Then who does?

I suppose it is the same answer as for "who owns the things no one owns?".

Technically I would say no-one.

How can a dead person own anything? It would seem to make a mockery of ownership.

 

[Ed]

Nowhere is there a better case study for this type of tax than in the UK - the dissolution of the aristocracy was accomplished using this tax.
A good thing? Well that's debatable.
Yes, because it rids us of the class system.
No, because rural economies were destroyed along with the families that supported them.

I am against these taxes. For the simple reason that it is a tax on wealth that has already been taxed (many times). IMO this is theft.

Interesting point. I think that if you look oh so closely you will find that the clever peers got beyond the old feudal notion of holding land and liquidated. A lot of their money came over here. Like inhetitance taxes, those peers that got wiped out were not smart enough to avoid it.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

*shakes head* You're personalizing matters again. I mention the estate tax and I'm somehow, bizarrely enough, bringing YOUR kids into these matters. No, I'm discussing the ethics of this philosophical policy. If I wanted to discuss a murder then I'm not necessarily bringing up every specific person who was murdered. Moreover, the estate tax only applies to relatively tiny portion of the population. That you can say I'm bringing "everyone's" -- or "EVERYONE's," if you prefer-- merely highlights your ignorance.

As a quick aside, estate taxes applies to a few people, yes. The reason is not that so few are concerned, it is the fact that anyone with an once of sense escapes the tax.

The parents of baby boomers bought cheap housing. A lot of them stayed put. Cheap housing in the 1950's is expensive housing today. Why do these people not get clobbered?

 

[shanek]

No, I'm not saying that.

Then you are acknowledging that someone should be able to specify what is done with their estate when they die.

Do the DEAD have "natural" rights?

Do the rights of a living person extend after their death?

If so, how long after their death? And to what extent?

You're asking the wrong questions. The actions we're talking about took place when the person was ALIVE; they only specified that something should happen after his death.

 

[shanek]

For those who think the government should take possession of a dead man's wealth, I ask, when Bill Gates dies, are you in favor of the government taking over Microsoft?

edited to add: Think "Patriot Act." Think "spyware."

Oh, gee, thanks; now I'm not going to get ANY sleep tonight!!!

 

[shanek]

I had posted:"So people are made unemployed, they can get another job, they shouldn't have been so dependent on the goodwill of someone else. Isn't that part of the ethos of a libertarian?"

To which you replied with a "no" e.g."No. Libertarians are all about goodwill. That's why we do so much charity work. But taking someone's money at gunpoint, no matter how rich they are, to give to someone, no matter how needy they are, is not goodwill.

Yes, now how did you get from that to the "obligation on an owner of a company to not make people unemployed?"

 

[shanek]

How can a dead person own anything?

The dead person doesn't own anything. His heirs do.

Why is this such a difficult concept for some people to grasp?

 

[Reager]

Then you are acknowledging that someone should be able to specify what is done with their estate when they die.

I never said they shouldn't be able to. As I said before, I'm just trying to understand why. Specifically, what a natural rights proponent has to say about it.

You're asking the wrong questions. The actions we're talking about took place when the person was ALIVE; they only specified that something should happen after his death.

A) Not necessarilly. If the person left no will or no instructions, then there is no way to tell what the person intended.

B) See my second question. So are you saying that the "right" of a living person to do what he will with his property extends beyond that person's actual lifespan? Is this a "natural" right? Or is it one that is granted by the living, for various reasons that we can get into later?

Mike

 

[Cain]

No, they are not. They would be arguing for allowing a person's place in life to be defined by his free choices. Such choices are not accompanied by a claim on anyone else's resources for their financing.

Out of curiosity, and to test the accuracy of your own assumptions, could you cite exactly what you consider to be "libertarianism's stated ideals"? And to save time, I'm not asking you to quote some author, I'm asking what you think they are.

This is an odd reply. I observed libertarianism's ideals as a life determined primarily by free choices but found the society they advocate does not in fact live up to those ideals.

An example of an author is easy to produce. Robert Nozick repeatedly emphasizes (emphasized, I should say) how a libertarian society is most conducive to a society of "self-shaping" individuals.

Sounds like you are the one who is confused. The word "libertarianism" is quite suited to describe the views of libertarians - you know, the ones with a strong respect for individual sovereignty, personal liberty, stuff like that. Do some of them lose points because their views also include respect for property as well?

No, they lose points because they confuse liberty with property. Historically, and in much of the world today, libertarianism referred to left-wing anarchists, until it was co-opted in the United States after WWII.

That it was not specifically earned by whoever is inheriting it does not mean that it was not earned by someone.

Incidentally, if I give something of mine to someone else, they didn't necessarily earn it either. How does that equate to anyone else having a claim on any part of that transaction?

Go back to Warren Buffet's apropos example. If my father gives me his gold medal from when he won first place in the 200 meter dash, do I deserve praise and recognition for accomplishments? I hold the medal, right? No, of course not. So why should a person (by nothing more than nepotism) be allowed to control the nation's resources? Moreover, what about others deprived of basic access to essential goods because their parents, for whatever reason, could not (or would not) provide? We say "tough luck"?

Re: not taking a libertarian's accusation of selfishness seriously:

I suspect you think you really have a point here, but if you spelled it out more clearly, I'm fairly confident it's not one that would bear much scrutiny.

No, it's not really much of a point because the charge, in addition to being wrong, is completely off-topic.

Re: Libertarians as natural-rights proponents, utilitarians, and contractarians.

There are also just plain libertarians, with a wide variety of approaches to different issues that reflect a strong respect for the right of peaceful individuals to run their own lives. Something you don't seem to fully grasp is that not all (or even most) libertarians necessarily fall neatly into any of your little boxes.

I suspect you really think you have a point here. The natural-rights view, at least on the Internet, is dominant, so that's the one (primarily) addressed in the opening post. Of course libertarians can allege they do not fall into any of these "neat" categories. A loud and shrill one on these very forums claims simultaneous membership to two of them.

A person can embrace libertarianism because she believes it is God's will. That's not really interesting or worthwhile though.

Um ... wouldn't an argument be necessary to establish why something is the government's business?

I already established reasons, repeating them numerous times. How does one argue against natural rights? My attempt is to show that it reaches undesirable conclusions; that alternative societies are more conducive to free choice, self-shaping behavior, meritocracy and so forth. Somebody can keep claiming "natural rights, natural rights, natural rights," but a foundation is necessary. Where do they come from? How do we know which rights are "natural" (whatever that means)? Aristotle of course invoked "natural law" to explain why Greece was a slave society. Indeed, since the beginnings of civilization slavery rather than freedom has been the norm (and slavery continues to this day).

Actually, the "it's mine" thing is probably used by libertarian critics more often than libertarians themselves. But even when used by the latter, it has a lot in common with the abbreviated pro-choice mantra "my body my choice". Would you call that a "simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk" reaction?

Yes.

Illuminating.

You're perceptive. I was not being the least bit sarcastic there.

If he no longer considered himself a libertarian, then why did you simply identify him earlier as "the most brilliant and influential libertarian", without pointing this out? You might as well have been saying Joe Schmo agreed that an estate tax is justifiable. So if it wasn't an appeal to authority, what the hell was your point?

I believe in the first part I was referring to an argument he made in _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_. The book of course is still worth reading even if Nozick has reservations.

Uh-huh. Then put your own cards on the table. Without relying on quotes from anyone else (who may or may not know as much about what they're talking about as you think they do), how about summarizing your own understanding of the primary tenets of libertarianism for us? Then we can see who's funnier, you or Shane.

I've already identified three different types of libertarianism. In the initial post, and subsequent postings, I've discussed libertarianism extensively. If you think I've mischaracterized it, then cite a specific quote.

Shanek is quite wrong. Read the thread (already posted on the first page) for extensive arguments.

Need help from "the major thinkers" to form your opinions, do you?

Definitely -- and there's no shame admitting it. In fact your comment here strikes me as rather anti-intellectual.

See the acknowledgments section of any ambitious, well-written, copiously documented book. Heck, those back to the faux controversy over social creation of wealth. Turn the opening comments in Thomas Sowell's (a well-known socialist) book _Basic Economics_.

______________________________

So in other words, its not actually a libertarian policy, its just your understanding of what their beliefs should be. The problem with pursuing that line of reasoning is that it leaves you open to creating a whole mess of strawmen.

And feel free to identify an inappropriately extended premise.

When exactly did that become the 'definition' of just compensation? I know that that is usually the standard applied when the government owes money, but most people probably would not find the rate of returns 'just' if they could earn more elsewhere.

Again, the main objection is that something has been taken without consent. Of course, given that premise, no form of compensation will be considered just.

 

[shanek]

B) See my second question. So are you saying that the "right" of a living person to do what he will with his property extends beyond that person's actual lifespan? Is this a "natural" right? Or is it one that is granted by the living, for various reasons that we can get into later?

Again, you're asking the wrong question. Anything that happens after death doesn't matter. What matters is he worked his whole life to obtain his estate and now he gets to pass it on to his heirs when he dies.

Even in absence of a will, who else would have a claim to it? Usually, heirs live on the estate for awhile if not permanently, have put a lot into it, and have invested much of their time and money into making it what it is. Why would it NOT fall to them?

 

[Reager]

Again, you're asking the wrong question. Anything that happens after death doesn't matter. What matters is he worked his whole life to obtain his estate and now he gets to pass it on to his heirs when he dies.

Ok. All I'm asking is WHY.

Even in absence of a will, who else would have a claim to it? Usually, heirs live on the estate for awhile if not permanently, have put a lot into it, and have invested much of their time and money into making it what it is. Why would it NOT fall to them?

I'm not saying it shouldn't. I've been trying to understand the natural rights rational for why it should. So far I haven't heard ANY explanation that has anything to do with "natural rights." Maybe there is none, I don't know. I was just curious.

Mike

 

[shanek]

No, they lose points because they confuse liberty with property.

No, we don't. You have been corrected on this time and time again. Property is the fruits of your liberty. As is your friendships and everything else you have. Taking the fruits of your liberty is thievery and fraud.

There's also the liberty to perform actions. Taking away your liberty to perform actions is slavery.

And there's your freedom to keep on living. If someone takes that away from you, it's murder.

I've explained this to you in detail many, many times. But you don't want to know, you don't want to understand. What you have in your head right now is all you will ever accept, and you will sink to any depths of dishonesty to try and desperately cling on to it.

Historically, and in much of the world today, libertarianism referred to left-wing anarchists, until it was co-opted in the United States after WWII.

Only for a very limited time and in a very limited fashion. THEY were the ones that co-opted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

The term "libertarian" originally meant proponent of liberty, and can still be used in this meaning, in the proper context. It can be opposed to authoritarian (in politics), or to proponents of determinism (in philosophy), etc.

We are using the term in its original meaning.

So why should a person (by nothing more than nepotism) be allowed to control the nation's resources?

Whoever said anything about "the nation's" resources? What resources are you talking about?

Moreover, what about others deprived of basic access to essential goods because their parents, for whatever reason, could not (or would not) provide? We say "tough luck"?

No, we just say it is immoral to take someone else's property at the point of a gun to give these people what you think they should have. You want them to live better lives? Start a charity. Don't become a thief. And it is thievery, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

I already established reasons

None that stood up to scrutiny.

My attempt is to show that it reaches undesirable conclusions;

Then you have failed miserably, because the only conclusion you show is force and misery and lawlessness, all based on your selfish desire to have what other people do by force.

Somebody can keep claiming "natural rights, natural rights, natural rights," but a foundation is necessary. Where do they come from?

Again, I have explained this to you, many, many times. I explained it again in this very thread. You just refuse to listen. You don't want to discuss. You don't want to learn. You only want to boost your ego by insulting, belittling, and degrading.

How do we know which rights are "natural" (whatever that means)?

Simple: they're the rights that you have, the things that you can do and say and be, when no one is using force.

Shanek is quite wrong.

Yeah, I'm wrong. I don't have a clue about Libertarianism. That's why I've been the champoin of it on this board since its origin. That's why I have achieved a prominent status in my state's party, so much that I was just voted both a delegate to our national convention and a presidential elector. That's why the Advocates for Self-Government has awarded me three Lights of Liberty awards. Because I don't know anything about it, and I'm ignorant, and the world must bow to the all-knowing Cain and his Amazing Bloated Ego.

And feel free to identify an inappropriately extended premise.

I identified several.

 

[Cain]

Semi-meaningful topics with time to burn.

No, we don't. You have been corrected on this time and time again. Property is the fruits of your liberty. As is your friendships and everything else you have. Taking the fruits of your liberty is thievery and fraud.

*Sigh* No, Shanek, property is not neccesarily the "fruits of your labor." If you noticed, like in the first post, it gets passed down.

There's also the liberty to perform actions. Taking away your liberty to perform actions is slavery.

And there's your freedom to keep on living. If someone takes that away from you, it's murder.

The first paragraph is vague and silly. The second paragraph is obvious and meaningless.

[snip]

Only for a very limited time and in a very limited fashion. THEY were the ones that co-opted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

What are you blabbering about? Who is "THEY"?

we are using the term in its original meaning.

Geez, how many times have you failed philosophy 101? The very term "liberty" is controversial, and of course you want to claim a monopoly it.

From Wikipedia:

Just like the word anarchist, the word "libertarian", at least in Europe, has long been synonymous with the socialist kind of anarchists, which may be specified as libertarian socialists. On the other hand, in the United States, it was rather understood as synonymous with individualist anarchist.

Whoever said anything about "the nation's" resources? What resources are you talking about?

It's a direct reference to the first post (I say as much).

No, we just say it is immoral to take someone else's property at the point of a gun to give these people what you think they should have. You want them to live better lives? Start a charity. Don't become a thief. And it is thievery, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

All property has been stolen. This is the well-known problem of original acquisition (again, something you've never come close to understanding). See the Jonathan Wolff essay linked earlier.

None that stood up to scrutiny.

Then you have failed miserably, because the only conclusion you show is force and misery and lawlessness, all based on your selfish desire to have what other people do by force.

This is the crap that usually gets "snipped" (if you were wondering). I could quite easily say "straw man" and "ad hominem" but since these accusations are so plainly without merit or support, it's best to move on.

Again, I have explained this to you, many, many times. I explained it again in this very thread. You just refuse to listen. You don't want to discuss. You don't want to learn. You only want to boost your ego by insulting, belittling, and degrading.

Here's your brilliant explanation:

Rights don't "come from" anywhere. They are inherent in us as human beings, because we have them unless someone else uses force to stop us from exercising them. That's not a radical view; that's the very idea this country was founded on.

I think I was sufficiently dismissive:
"Darwin's dangerous idea overturned that view, however."

As the cliche goes, violence is inherent to human beings, quite natural, but that doesn't make it right.

The critical sentence here, the second one, appears to be a non-sequitur.

And again, Aristotle (as well as Locke) can maintain that "natural law" dictates some humans are mere tools for others. It's an "inherent" fact.

As for the Constitution, see the section granting a limited monopoly on ideas for "the progress of arts and science." There's nothing "natural" about copyrights (or magical about 14 years). The purpose here is utilitarian; another reason why economist-type libertarians reject the "natural" rights view.

Today, through numerous copyright extensions, heirs can reap royalties on a song 70 years after the creator dies. But hey, I'm sure it takes a great deal of effort to deposit a check in the bank, especially if it's raining. And besides, Hugh Grant was charming in that one movie.

Simple: they're the rights that you have, the things that you can do and say and be, when no one is using force.

Again, that's a pre-Darwinian, ahistorical world-view. Unfortunately there's nothing unnatural about humans enslaving and murdering each other. It's immoral and wrong and without justification, but not unnatural. (Furthermore, one should beware of the naturalistic fallacy -- the (false) idea that what's natural is moral; the is/ought gap.) Isn't it curious how humans have only recently discovered these inherent rights (and even Aristotle and the Founding Fathers got them wrong)?

Also, there's a slight problem: negative rights entail positive obligations.

If A attempts to murder B, then why should C be tapped for resources to enforce B's rights? Anarcho-capitalists admirably take the premise to their logical conclusion, believing in the privitization of all government. So there's no principled institutional support for the enforcement of "natural" rights; let the market decide.

Yeah, I'm wrong. I don't have a clue about Libertarianism. That's why I've been the champoin of it on this board since its origin. That's why I have achieved a prominent status in my state's party, so much that I was just voted both a delegate to our national convention and a presidential elector. That's why the Advocates for Self-Government has awarded me three Lights of Liberty awards. Because I don't know anything about it, and I'm ignorant, and the world must bow to the all-knowing Cain and his Amazing Bloated Ego.

Yes, and as you said earlier, you never fashion yourself as an authority. Also, all libertarian political philosophers, the people who meaningfully engage in these debates, are completely wrong. The champoin of the James Randi Forums knows!

I identified several.

Oh, sure, you said a "strawman" a bunch of times. Long on accusations and short on explanations (the usual).

 

[shanek]

*Sigh* No, Shanek, property is not neccesarily the "fruits of your labor."

Strawman. And direct misquote. I didn't say it was the fruits of your labor; I said it was fruts of your liberty, and it is, unless the property was obtained through theft or fraud.

The first paragraph is vague and silly.

No, it isn't. It's pointing out how freedom also covers the freedom to act as well as own.

The second paragraph is obvious and meaningless.

If it's obvious, it's not meaningless, because it's another liberty you have outside of owning property.

It's amazing the lengths you will go to in order to avoid admitting that you're deliberately misrepresenting the Libertarian view.

What are you blabbering about? Who is "THEY"?

Are you incapable of following basic sentence structures? "They" were the ONLY PEOPLE YOU MENTIONED IN THE QUOTE—"Historically, and in much of the world today, libertarianism referred to left-wing anarchists, until it was co-opted in the United States after WWII."

Geez, how many times have you failed philosophy 101?

It's a direct reference to the first post (I say as much).

No, you don't. It's not at all clear what you're talking about. The only resources I see you mention are the ones someone has when they die, which go on to their children. How is that in any way "the nation's" resources?

All property has been stolen. This is the well-known problem of original acquisition (again, something you've never come close to understanding).

I've given you my position several times. You're just lying again and you know it.

This is the crap that usually gets "snipped"

I have pointed out exactly what you have snipped. They're all points you are apparently uncomfortable discussing.

I think I was sufficiently dismissive:
"Darwin's dangerous idea overturned that view, however."

How? You refuse to explain yourself here.

As the cliche goes, violence is inherent to human beings, quite natural, but that doesn't make it right.

Of course, you're lying again. You know perfectly well that I said, "Rights don't "come from" anywhere. They are inherent in us as human beings, because we have them unless someone else uses force to stop us from exercising them. That's not a radical view; that's the very idea this country was founded on." If voilence isn't force, I don't know what is.

You can only rebut my points by redefining them. That is the very definition of "strawman."

Yes, and as you said earlier, you never fashion yourself as an authority.

I'm not. I'm defending myself from your allegation that I have no call to speak for the Libertarian position. I'm defending myself from a blatant ad hominem attack. Which is really all you have to use against me.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Ah, but that there is not always a "legally binding agreement" in place when we are talking about inheritence.

So what? Where there is one, I see no good reason not to honor it.

Well I was referring to the possibility that the "natural" rights of a livin person to control his property extend beyond the individual's death. But the problem with the statement above is that, again, there is not always an agreement between anyone to do anything. In some states, I can draw up a perfectly valid will alone in my room.

Again, so what? Determination of facts is often a challenge for the legal system. But if it can be reasonably determined that this is what you did, there is no good reason not to honor the wishes reflected in that will.

coupled with the lack of any valid claim on the property in question that would supercede that of any designated heirs.

But there has to be a reason why we say the *designated* heirs have a better claim then anyone else.

The only reason necessary is that it is what the person naming them as heirs wanted. If you think someone else has just as valid a claim, then say so, and explain why.

What is the basis for recognizing that a person should be able to control assets, in some cases years after they have died?

Actually, I have only argued that they should be able to determine who gets those assets once they have died. You seem to be looking for new stuff to argue about. How about first addressing what right government (or anyone other than the designated heirs) would have to such assets?

I'm not saying I disagree with that, I specifically directed that question to proponents of natural rights to find out what their justification is. Thus far, I do'nt think any have answered.

Since I haven't said anything about "natural rights", you probably shouldn't have made a big deal out of whether I had answered it.

Suppose I die with $6 billion in cash and bequeath a dollar to every person on the planet?

If there are more than 6 billion people on the planet at the time, you might have to rethink your math. Otherwise, fine by me.

Why do the wishes of dead control the living?

They don't. The heirs are usually living, and if they inherit something they don't want, they are free to give it away.

Sure they do. Suppose I direct in my will that my 13 acres of woodland in Alabama be left to my son, provided he never erect a house on the land, if he does, the land will go to my daughter. Legally, I can do that.

First, neither your son nor your daughter has any obligation to accept the land.

And second, I have not argued for arrangements like the one you just described anyway.

Now, how about explaining why anyone should have any kind of claim on your property after your death other than the people you want to have it?

All I'm trying to do is figure out where the dead get any "rights" from.

From obligations others assumed while they were still alive, if it helps you get there.

Already addressed, see above.

As nearly as I can tell, you haven't addressed anything about the commitments others make to the person while he/she is still alive.

The answer to that question has nothing to do with where the government would get a right to collect taxes.

Of course it does. Once again, if you're going to raise questions about the right not to have something done to you, it's perfectly legit to respond by asking what the right is of those doing it in the first place.

Have you come up with an answer yet?

No, I haven't because it is jumping two steps ahead of MY question.

No, it gets right to the heart of your question. Try actually answering it, and you may see why.

You're assuming that DEAD have a "right" not to have something done to them in the first place.

Actually, I'm challenging any "right" that anyone else has to do it to them.

Besides, they weren't always dead. While they were living, they had a right to enter into agreements with other people, and to expect others involved in that agreement to fulfill any obligations they took on as part of the agreement, even if some of the terms are not to be carried out until after someone involved in the agreement dies. If you disagree, plainly say so. If not, it's time for you to abandon this point. In either case, it's also time for you to answer my question.

And I'm asking where does that "right" come from?

To the degree that it has to come from anywhere, it would be from the lack of any right on anyone else's part to do it to them.

Is it a "natural" right?

Since you seem to be hung up on the term, you tell me.

Is it granted by the state? Society?

I haven't argued that it needs to be granted at all.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Cain
Well, the problem -- and this cuts to the heart of liberty -- is that they are in effect arguing for a social-economic system that allows a person's place in life to be determined by uncontrollable circumstances rather than free choices -- the anti-thesis of libertarianism's stated ideals.

No, they are not. They would be arguing for allowing a person's place in life to be defined by his free choices. Such choices are not accompanied by a claim on anyone else's resources for their financing.

Out of curiosity, and to test the accuracy of your own assumptions, could you cite exactly what you consider to be "libertarianism's stated ideals"? And to save time, I'm not asking you to quote some author, I'm asking what you think they are.

This is an odd reply.

You made reference to something as "the anti-thesis of libertarianism's stated ideals". How is it "an odd reply" to ask you what you think those ideals are?

I observed libertarianism's ideals as a life determined primarily by free choices but found the society they advocate does not in fact live up to those ideals.

That's nice, but it doesn't clarify what you consider those ideals to be. Please try again.

Come to think of it, it would also be helpful if you would explain what you mean by "the society they advocate", and then, how that society fails to live up to those ideals. So far, clarity doesn't seem to be your strong point.

An example of an author is easy to produce.

Um ... an author is exactly what I told you I was not interested in.

Robert Nozick repeatedly emphasizes (emphasized, I should say) how a libertarian society is most conducive to a society of "self-shaping" individuals.

Which, again, tells me nothing about what Cain thinks libertarian ideals are.

Sounds like you are the one who is confused. The word "libertarianism" is quite suited to describe the views of libertarians - you know, the ones with a strong respect for individual sovereignty, personal liberty, stuff like that. Do some of them lose points because their views also include respect for property as well?

No, they lose points because they confuse liberty with property.

Okay, that's twice now. My comments apparently went right over your head, and it doesn't bode well in terms of your willingness to learn from your mistakes. All you seem to be doing is attributing the trait of confusion to what is actually a respect for something, probably because you simply don't share that respect yourself. If anything, that would reflect a bit of confusion on your part. But if you mean something else, I'm sure you'll clearly explain yourself.

Historically, and in much of the world today, libertarianism referred to left-wing anarchists, until it was co-opted in the United States after WWII.

If that's how you're using the term, why not simply refer to "left-wing anarchists" in your commentary instead, to avoid confusion? And if that's not how you're using it, then again, please explain clearly what you do mean by it.

Besides, if anybody "co-opted" the term, wouldn't it be those who would use it to reflect something other than a high regard for liberty?

Incidentally, if I give something of mine to someone else, they didn't necessarily earn it either. How does that equate to anyone else having a claim on any part of that transaction?

Go back to Warren Buffet's apropos example. If my father gives me his gold medal from when he won first place in the 200 meter dash, do I deserve praise and recognition for accomplishments? I hold the medal, right? No, of course not. So why should a person (by nothing more than nepotism) be allowed to control the nation's resources?

Sorry, I'm not aware of any particular individual who controls "the nation's resources". You'll have to be more clear, and perhaps, try extra hard to steer clear of hyperbole.

Also, you seem to be going out of your way to not answer the question I actually asked. Please read it again, more carefully.

Moreover, what about others deprived of basic access to essential goods because their parents, for whatever reason, could not (or would not) provide? We say "tough luck"?

"We" don't all have to have the same response. Nothing is stopping you, me, or anyone else, from helping such people directly, or from pooling our own resources with like-minded individuals to set up organizations to do this for us on a broader scale.

it's difficult to take a libertarian's accusations of "selfishness" seriously

I suspect you think you really have a point here, but if you spelled it out more clearly, I'm fairly confident it's not one that would bear much scrutiny.

No, it's not really much of a point because the charge, in addition to being wrong, is completely off-topic.

It's not clear what "charge" you're referring to. If characterizing libertarians as selfish is what you're talking about, I'll certainly agree that that's wrong. But if you agree, then why the hell did you make the statement in the first place, especially if you think it's off-topic?

There are also just plain libertarians, with a wide variety of approaches to different issues that reflect a strong respect for the right of peaceful individuals to run their own lives. Something you don't seem to fully grasp is that not all (or even most) libertarians necessarily fall neatly into any of your little boxes.

I suspect you really think you have a point here.

As I told someone else recently, I'm at least slightly flattered that you seem to be trying to use my own style against me. But the "point" was an attempt to correct you on what seemed like a belief that all libertarians do fit into one of those categories.

The natural-rights view, at least on the Internet, is dominant, so that's the one (primarily) addressed in the opening post. Of course libertarians can allege they do not fall into any of these "neat" categories. A loud and shrill one on these very forums claims simultaneous membership to two of them.

That's all nice. It wasn't intended as a refutation of something, was it?

A person can embrace libertarianism because she believes it is God's will. That's not really interesting or worthwhile though.

Who the hell is "she"?

Um ... wouldn't an argument be necessary to establish why something is the government's business?

I already established reasons, repeating them numerous times.

I must have missed that. What do you think your strongest 2 or 3 arguments were? And if repeating that many is a problem, could you at least cite one of them?

How does one argue against natural rights?

You should probably ask someone who has taken a position against natural rights.

(Why do people keep asking me about this?)

My attempt is to show that it reaches undesirable conclusions; that alternative societies are more conducive to free choice, self-shaping behavior, meritocracy and so forth. Somebody can keep claiming "natural rights, natural rights, natural rights," but a foundation is necessary. Where do they come from? How do we know which rights are "natural" (whatever that means)? Aristotle of course invoked "natural law" to explain why Greece was a slave society. Indeed, since the beginnings of civilization slavery rather than freedom has been the norm (and slavery continues to this day).

Was any of this intended as a response to something I said?

'Cause you sure haven't made much of a case for why the state has any business taxing inherited assets.

Actually, the "it's mine" thing is probably used by libertarian critics more often than libertarians themselves. But even when used by the latter, it has a lot in common with the abbreviated pro-choice mantra "my body my choice". Would you call that a "simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk" reaction?

Yes.

Ouch. Didn't see that one coming.

In any case, someone can easily throw around such terms as "simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk" to disparage a view they disagree with, but the trick is to actually identify what's wrong with that view. You might want to consider that approach.

You're perceptive. I was not being the least bit sarcastic there.

Thanks.

If he no longer considered himself a libertarian, then why did you simply identify him earlier as "the most brilliant and influential libertarian", without pointing this out? You might as well have been saying Joe Schmo agreed that an estate tax is justifiable. So if it wasn't an appeal to authority, what the hell was your point?

I believe in the first part I was referring to an argument he made in _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_. The book of course is still worth reading even if Nozick has reservations.

You're not much for straightforward answers, are you?

Speaking of which ...

Uh-huh. Then put your own cards on the table. Without relying on quotes from anyone else (who may or may not know as much about what they're talking about as you think they do), how about summarizing your own understanding of the primary tenets of libertarianism for us? Then we can see who's funnier, you or Shane.

I've already identified three different types of libertarianism.

Look again. I didn't ask you to identify any particular types of libertarianism. I asked you to clearly articulate what you believe to be the primary tenets of libertarianism, or, to use your own words, "libertarianism's stated ideals".

In the initial post, and subsequent postings, I've discussed libertarianism extensively.

And yet amazingly, you seem unable to clearly articulate what you believe to be its main principles.

If you think I've mischaracterized it, then cite a specific quote.

I'm not sure you've characterized it much at all. You've made reference to "libertarianism's stated ideals", so it is reasonable to ask you to clearly articulate what you think those ideals are, especially since you've also been somewhat insulting about someone else's understanding of the philosophy. So let's hear yours. It's "put up or shut up" time.

Shanek is quite wrong.

About what?

Read the thread (already posted on the first page) for extensive arguments.

I have. What I haven't run across is any clear commentary from you on what you believe to be the primary tenets of libertarianism.

Need help from "the major thinkers" to form your opinions, do you?

Definitely -- and there's no shame admitting it.

There is when you have to rely so heavily on referring to them as a substitute for formulating your own arguments.

In fact your comment here strikes me as rather anti-intellectual.

That's your confusion. My comment is pro-independent-thought.

See the acknowledgments section of any ambitious, well-written, copiously documented book. Heck, those back to the faux controversy over social creation of wealth. Turn the opening comments in Thomas Sowell's (a well-known socialist) book _Basic Economics_.

Is there a point in there somewhere?