Libertarianism and Inheritance

[Reager]

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

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.

The only reason necessary is that it is what the person naming them as heirs wanted.

Ah yes...the "no good reason" version of an airtight argument.

If you think someone else has just as valid a claim, then say so, and explain why.

Sorry, I'm simply trying to understand a position. That doesn't require me to argue ANYTHING. It's like someone asking, "Hey why is this barn painted blue?" And getting the response, "Well if you think it should be painted a different color, tell us why."

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?

See above.

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.

Then you probably shouldn't have started spouting your mouth off answering questions directed at persons whose views you don't share and/or understand. Could have saved us a whole lot of time.

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.

I never said you did. But your position seems to be, "Do whatever the dead person wants or don't accept the money/property/etc." Which is fine. I'd just like to know WHY (beyond the rock-solid "no good reason not to" argument).

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?

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.

Because it is at most a sub-issue of the main debate, and at worst a completely different topic entirely. You can't justify carrying out a dead person's directives based on contractual obligations, if contractual obligations relevant to only fraction of those directives.

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

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.

See above.

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.

Isn't it wonderful when you can designate your own position as the winning one, simply by default?

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

Again, it seems this is a question you probably shouldn't have attempted to answer in the first place.

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

I don't know what you're arguing, but you haven't come anywhere near addressesing the issues in my original post.

Mike

 

[shanek]

Sorry, I'm simply trying to understand a position. That doesn't require me to argue ANYTHING. It's like someone asking, "Hey why is this barn painted blue?" And getting the response, "Well if you think it should be painted a different color, tell us why."

Well, naturally. It's blue because the owner of the barn wanted it to be blue. If you're asking out of curiosity, that's one thing, but in the context of this discussion to be more comparable you would have to be demanding that the owner justify his reasons for doing so, something he is under no obligation to do.

 

[Cain]

Shanek, I thank for what must be your third non-response.

Originally posted by shanek 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.

Yes, I accidentially misquoted your poorly constructed phrasing. Apologies. The problem, of course, mentioned several times, is that all land (important if we're discussing the estate taxes) has been, at one point or another, seized through force or fraud. How many generations does it take to change a wrong into a right again?

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

And here's the paragraph: "There's also the liberty to perform actions. Taking away your liberty to perform actions is slavery."

There's nothing here covering freedom to own, and the actions, again, are vague. The negative conception of liberty traditionally associated with libertarianism is freedom from (human) interference. This implies, according to libertarians, a freedom to act.

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

And once you more you cannot distinguish between libertarianism and Libertarianism. Whether or not I am misrepresenting *a* libertarian position -- a natural rights view -- is open to debate. Of course you produce no evidence and offer no reasoning. Instead it's empty accusation after empty accusation.

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."

I could say the same. Your comments were bizarre given the treatment in the Wikipedia entry. I already quoted a portion, and I'll do so once more:

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.

See the entry on Libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

"The term 'libertarianism' in this sense [common, current, US usage] (although in itself much older), has only been largely used since 1955 [1]."

I only tried to put it delicately because the link you provided highlighted your ignorance while making my point. Embarrassing.

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?

I prefaced the argument by directly referring to Warren Buffet's argument, which I assume you read. (You did read it, didn't you?)

Money, for example, is a claim on goods and services. But in the case of the estate tax it is unearned.

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

Yes, you've given me your position, I'm sure of it. That's exactly why I said, "You've never come close to understanding [the problem]."

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

Uh-huh. Shanek, I only really began "snipping," so to speak, after you started omitting large swaths of text and ignoring central arguments (see this post that I am replying to as a demonstrative example).

Yeah, your uber-great argument is in the gaps.

How? You refuse to explain yourself here.

No, no. It follows in the accompanying paragraphs, which of course you've ignored. Even more insulting, in this very post, your most recent non-response, you accuse me of ducking arguments.

What you claim as "natural" is not natural at all, as anyone remotely familiar with evolution and human history knows. Which is why I call the view "pre-Dariwnian" and "ahistorical".

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.

Are you acting stupid on purpose now? Yes violence is force. Duuuuuh. It's also "inherent in us as human beings," but, as I tried to explain in both a sentence and a following parenthetical note, there is no a gap between is and ought. How are these rights "inherent" to us as human beings? You never explain.

Aristotle could make an identical argument for slavery in his time: "The slaves are the instruments of the masters. This follows from our inherent nature. That's not a radical view; that's the very idea this polis was founded on."

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

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.

Yes, uh-huh. Do you know whether or not Milton Friedman is a Libertarian? He's not; he's a Republican. If you're wondering whether Milton Friedman is a libertarian, the answer is yes. This is not a logical contradiction either, I swear.

The libertarian view can be arrived at several different, mutually exclusive ways. Again and again and again and again, you fail to understand the elementary distinctions between natural rights and utilitarianism -- which I touched upon in my previous post, without response. Yes, I think it's quite possible to achieve a relatively high position in the Libertarian party without understanding anything about libertarianism's philosophical underpinnings. In fact, it's probably an informal requirement.

---------------------------------------------

Moving along to "doublesteamer":

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.

This is the conclusion of the argument. It's easy to skip down to the last part and say, "Hey, that's not true!!" without examining the reasoning. Shanek does this often. You've done it here. Go ahead and disagree with that conclusion, I don't care, but attack the reasoning that supports it.

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.

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?

It's a conclusion, not an assumption. The assumption is that libertarianism empowers individuals toward self-shaping behavior (stated ideals), but that's mistaken according to the argument. Now a libertarian could always say, "So what? If alternative institutions enable the outcome of person's life to be determined more by choices than circumstances, then too bad. The passing of property is more important."

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

Then I misread your sentence.

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

Actually, it does. I've already said, in the original post, and many times afterward, that libertarians advocate a society where an individual's choices determine her life. Alternative institutions and ideologies, however, according to the argument, come closer to achieving this ideal.

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.

This is nonsense. The sentence that immediately follows in the paragraph explains. But you broke them up to add this comment:

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?

No, those sentences were only inspired by what you thought the word libertarianism was "suited" to describe.

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?

[later]
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.

This is exasperating. In the opening argument, and for much of the first page, I explicitlyy discuss an estate tax, which applies only to wealthy individuals. In fact, several times I said one can choose whatever they considered wealthy, so we could come to agreement, because the discussion would focus on whether or not estates could be legitimately taxed.

There's no hyperbole because you're using a substantively different example: giving your friend something. This is said casually, as though it's a CD. No, a small gift is insignificant. It does not impact choice/circumstances or address the argument in any way.

Yes, so someone should read a bit closer.

"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.

Yes, yes, the charity of others, the kindness of strangers. Allow me, then, to modify the paragraph, as you did not understand the point:

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

[snip]

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.

Libertarians do, generally, fit into those categories. In fact on the Internet I have never once seen a libertarian that falls into the contractarian position. Which is why Victor (thread linked earlier) ignored it as a possible foundation.

[snip]

Cain:
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"?

Sigh. Change "a person" to "Samantha" .

Is anything resembling an argument coming up? I doubt it.

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

Cain:
I already established reasons, repeating them numerous times.

Doub:
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?

No, they are reasons apart of a single argument. As I've said, repeated numerous times. Once again to trigger your memory: meritocracy, equal opportunity, efficiency, fairness, justice.

Henceforth, I won't even say "snip" as I've grown to despise the word. Now I'll just quote a paragraph, and leave an asterisk. This means I do not deem the comment worhty of a response. If you feel otherwise, let me know.

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

(Why do people keep asking me about this?)

*

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

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.

Here again you've balkanized an entire paragraph that was a connected thought. All of this appeared in response to your prior question (helpfully marked by three carrots).

In response to this last bit "'Cause you sure..." I mean, address the argument then. Identify its shortcomings. There is a low signal-to-noise ratio in your post.

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.

*

Thanks.

*

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

Speaking of which ...

*

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".

You misunderstand again. The primary tenets of libertarianism are bound up in the different types of libertarianism. The purpose of the argument is to show that a premise is inconsistent with a belief espoused by libertarians. Stated ideals, for the fourth or fifth time, pertains to "self-shaping" behavior (life determined by choices).

Shanek has never understood the difference between natural rights and utilitarianism (competing foundations).

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

Now for the fifth or sixth time: a life determined (primarily) by choices.

How can you continually fail to grasp the meaning of the conclusion you repeat ad nauseum?

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.

Let me make cosmetic alterations:

Well, the problem -- and this cuts to the heart of utilitarianism-- is that [these utilitarian] socialists are in effect arguing for a social-economic system that makes people miserable rather happy -- the anti-thesis of their stated ideals.

So what's the "stated ideal"? Simple: the second part, italicized, underlined, and in bold for your benefit. Can you hear me now?

About what?

Hmph. The foundations of libertarianism.

On reading Victor's thread:

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.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? If by tenets you mean guiding principles, there are different types of libertarianism (i.e. different guiding principles). One view says "the greatest good for the greatest number." These empirical libertarians advocate institutions similar to natural rights libertarians, but for different reasons.

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

No, the argument is not Nozick's (for example). Understanding libertarianism (or any belief) requires, well, reading the views of others to inform one's arguments. But I now doubt you'd ever undertand.

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

Is there a point in there somewhere?

*

As a post-script. You're not the least bit engaging either, as you habitually fail to address the argument. And so I, tossing modesty aside, attribute careless mistakes (like getting your name wrong) to the dull, stultifying nature of your obtuse requests for further clarification. I never ever thought I'd say this but Corplinx had the most reasonable (in retrospect) objections.

 

[Reager]

Well, naturally. It's blue because the owner of the barn wanted it to be blue.

Everything is so simple in your world, isn't it? I can think of a hundred reasons why a barn would be painted blue besides "the owner wanted it blue."

If you're asking out of curiosity, that's one thing,

I said I was, right from the start...

but in the context of this discussion to be more comparable you would have to be demanding that the owner justify his reasons for doing so, something he is under no obligation to do.

How is that at all comparable to this discussion? This is a skeptics message board. We are engaged in philosophical discourse (when not shouting at each other). Everyone has, if not the obligation, the responsibility to "justify their reasons" if they want to be taken seriously.

Mike

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

How is that at all comparable to this discussion? This is a skeptics message board. We are engaged in philosophical discourse (when not shouting at each other). Everyone has, if not the obligation, the responsibility to "justify their reasons" if they want to be taken seriously.

Mike

There is a quite simple answer:

If you believe that the best thing to do with your assets when you die is to give them to the government, feel free to do so.

However, as is evidenced by the proposal for an exemption for smaller estates, the real issue here is that those in favour of estate tax want to decide what they do with their assets but want other people to be forced to give their assets to the government.

Edited to clarify.

 

[Darat]

...snip... but want other people to be forced to give their assets to the government.

Look at it another way.

I die unexpectedly and don't leave a will.

Should the government therefore seize my estate and give it to my "heirs".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Look at it another way.

I die unexpectedly and don't leave a will.

Should the government therefore seize my estate and give it to my "heirs".

Seize your estate from whom?

 

[Darat]

Seize your estate from whom?

I don't know. Its one of things I don’t understand - how libertarians from their principles can get to some form of ownership of property that survives death.

 

[Ed]

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.

.

A more apt question would be: Suppose you inheret your fathers gold medal and you cannot pay the tax on it. Should the government have the right to force you to sell it to pay those taxes?

 

[Reager]

There is a quite simple answer:

If you believe that the best thing to do with your assets when you die is to give them to the government, feel free to do so.

However, as is evidenced by the proposal for an exemption for smaller estates, the real issue here is that those in favour of estate tax want to decide what they do with their assets but want other people to be forced to give their assets to the government.

Edited to clarify.

There are so many questions begged in that response it made my head spin, but regardless...No that is NOT the issue, at least not the issue I asked about. I am NOT asking the living owner of something to justify their reasons for dong X with it. I am asking the proponent of a natural rights philosophy what natural rights theory has to say about why someone should control what happens to their property AFTER they are dead, and to JUSTIFY their reasoning.

Do the dead have certain natural rights because they used to be alive? Do the dead NOT have natural rights but we honor their requests because they used to have them? Do the natural rights of the living continue after death for the purpose of disposing of property? None of the above? Maybe natural rights has no answer to my question. But at least putting forth one of the responses above would address the question I asked because they involve 1) natural rights and 2) dead people and 3) the property that belonged to them while they were alive.

So far NO ONE has attempted to answer my original question from a natural rights perspective (or at least they haven't made it clear they were doing so). I guess there are ZERO natural rights proponents who are following this thread who wish to join in. That is certainly their perogative. I will therefore stop asking.

Rant over.

Mike

 

[BillyTK]

Hi shanek, apologies for my delay in responding to you; I hadn't noticed that you'd replied, and had figured that my post had simply got lost in the pile.

There are three definitions of anarchy in the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Absence of any form of political authority." The Constitution is the political authority over Congress. If Congress is ignoring the Constitution, then there is no political authority over them.

"Political disorder and confusion." Look at C-SPAN and follow any given bill from introduction to passing and then tell me that isn't what we have now.

"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." The Constitution is that principle; when they ignore that, then it is effectively absent.

Seems to me it fits EVERY definition of the word!

I'm detecting a possible note of hyperbole here; I still think that oligarchy is a more accurate description of this state of affairs, however I don't feel such a strong objection here to your usage of the word here to want to take this point any further.

What I'm saying is, in the absence of the rule of law all such debates are moot since no matter what you pass it won't be followed. Restore the rule of law first, then we can go about fixing things.

But surely for other countries which don't have such a principle enshrined in a document like your constitution it's entirely relevant as such a document follows the moral principle, not the other way round?

I have asked him several questions that he refuses to answer and made several points he continues to ignore. He also continues to lie about libertarians, make strawman arguments, and make ad hominem attacks.

Which brand of libertarianism precisely (okay, so that one is possibly provocative for the sake of it; please proceed accordingly)? I outlined in my previous post what I considered to be the central contetion of his argument, around which everything else stands or falls; it would appear that your objections lie elsewhere.

No, it's just hidden. His meaning was plain, and it's in the meaning where it all lies.

The breadth of the implication of your statement here makes me hesitant to draw a conclusion. Could you outline what you consider that meaning to be please?

 

[shanek]

Yes, I accidentially misquoted your poorly constructed phrasing. Apologies. The problem, of course, mentioned several times, is that all land (important if we're discussing the estate taxes) has been, at one point or another, seized through force or fraud. How many generations does it take to change a wrong into a right again?

You were given two entire threads to substantiate that based on anything other than the "property is theft" canard, and you were completely unable to do so.

I also gave you my family history and how we came to own the land many of us (including me) still have. I challenged you to point out where was the force or fraud involved in occupying this land, and you were completely unable to do so.

And here's the paragraph: "There's also the liberty to perform actions. Taking away your liberty to perform actions is slavery."

There's nothing here covering freedom to own,

More of your pathetic dishonesty. I was rebutting your assertion that the only liberties I recognized were the rights to own property. This was made to point out that that just isn't the case. Now, here you are weaseling again.

And once you more you cannot distinguish between libertarianism and Libertarianism.

Because the only difference is that Libertarianism refers to the Libertarian Party and libertarianism refers to the philosphy behind it. There is no significant difference in any debates. You WANT there to be, just like the creationists want there to be significant differences between micro- and macro-evolution, but it just ain't so. If it's a big "L" it refers to the party. That's the diff.

I could say the same. Your comments were bizarre given the treatment in the Wikipedia entry.

No, Wikipedia confirmed my point—that they had coopted the name, not vice-versa as you claimed. But your dishonest, pigheaded, bigoted little mind just can't handle that.

Money, for example, is a claim on goods and services.[/qutoe]

No, it isn't. It is a store of value that can be used to voluntarily obtain goods and services. BIG difference. If I have $100, what exactly do I have a claim to, other than what people are willing to give me voluntarily in exchange?

Uh-huh. Shanek, I only really began "snipping," so to speak, after you started omitting large swaths of text and ignoring central arguments (see this post that I am replying to as a demonstrative example).

No, I snipped lies and ad hominem attacks. I pointed them out later when you started whining about it.

Are you acting stupid on purpose now? Yes violence is force. Duuuuuh. It's also "inherent in us as human beings,"

Your lie, which you just compounded, was in refusing to acknowledge that I specifically excepted force in this definition, as force by its very nature intrudes on the rights of others. I NEVER said that everything inherent to humans was a "right." YOU made up that pathetic strawman.

Yes, uh-huh. Do you know whether or not Milton Friedman is a Libertarian? He's not; he's a Republican.

He's dead, actually. And when did I ever say he was a Libertarian?

If you're wondering whether Milton Friedman is a libertarian, the answer is yes. This is not a logical contradiction either, I swear.

No, it isn't. He was a libertarian because he held to libertarian principles. He wasn't a Libertarian because he wasn't a member of the party. Why you think all this is significant to the debate is something I'll never understand (other than your obsession for ad hominems and appeals to authority).

The libertarian view can be arrived at several different, mutually exclusive ways.

When have I ever said otherwise? You're just making stuff up again.

Actually, it does. I've already said, in the original post, and many times afterward, that libertarians advocate a society where an individual's choices determine her life.

("Her" life? Geez, learn the language..."His" life is correct since the gender is unspecified. "Her" makes the sentence awkward and confusing.)

Anyway, it is true that there are many outside factors that determine the course of a person's life as well as their own actions. One of your many lies is that Libertarians fail to acknowledge this.

This is exasperating. In the opening argument, and for much of the first page, I explicitlyy discuss an estate tax, which applies only to wealthy individuals.

And, of course, by your own admission, YOU get to decide who is considered "wealthy" (although now you're backpedalling on that) and you think it's perfectly all right to STEAL from that person AT THE POINT OF A GUN to help others. Given this, I don't see how you can claim any basis for morality here at all.

Yes, yes, the charity of others, the kindness of strangers. Allow me, then, to modify the paragraph, as you did not understand the point:

Yeah, right, Cain, somehow it's his fault. Your argument can be summarized in a very Monty-Python-like way: "Yes, but apart from friends and family members who are now more prosperous due to a much lesser tax burden and are how better able to help them, charities which are proven and will also have a lot more money to help people with, and the proven effect of the free market eliminating poverty and increasing the quality of life for everyone, what would the Libertarians ever do for them???"

Sigh. Change "a person" to "Samantha" .

Who's Samantha?

No, they are reasons apart of a single argument. As I've said, repeated numerous times. Once again to trigger your memory: meritocracy, equal opportunity, efficiency, fairness, justice.

All things we need a libertarian system to preserve, and that government just gets in the way of. The only role of government should be to protect us against those who would seek to take those away from us; the last thing it should do is impose them itself.

So perhaps you'll explain specifically why all of these are reasons why the government gets to meddle in our bank accounts?

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

I would think so. Why don't you provide one, since you're arguing that position?

Shanek has never understood the difference between natural rights and utilitarianism (competing foundations).

No; I undersood them. YOU refused to understand MY position on them. And so you use it every chance you get as a briockbat because you just can't refure my arguments logically.

Now for the fifth or sixth time: a life determined (primarily) by choices.

Primarily does not mean solely. Besides, do you honestly think that it most cases the estate came about through no actions of the heirs? No one ever worked in the family business when they were younger? None of them ever invested in it when they became older and got a job? Are you REALLY saying that their lives up to that point are completely separate from the estate they inherit?

Why do you REFUSE to answer these questions?

 

[shanek]

Everything is so simple in your world, isn't it? I can think of a hundred reasons why a barn would be painted blue besides "the owner wanted it blue."

Like? There might be many reasons why the owner wanted it blue, but short of someone using force to make him paint it blue I can't think of any other basic reason than that: for whatever reason, the owner decided that blue was the color the barn should be.

How is that at all comparable to this discussion?

Because we're talking about a system where someone is externally and perhaps even arbitrarily deciding for someone else how much is "too much" for them to inherit, and forcing them to defend the fact that they "need" that much money. You likened their opinion on that to whether or not a barn is painted blue, so in the context of this discussion you ARE demanding that the justify it or have it be taken from them by force.

So, again, if I make "too much" money in my life you are trying to make me justify wanting to give it to my kids when I die. And if I can't, then you win by default and the government can take my money. THAT'S why I say the situation I brought about is comparable to this discussion. In a free country, I shouldn't have to justify it to anybody.

 

[shanek]

I am asking the proponent of a natural rights philosophy what natural rights theory has to say about why someone should control what happens to their property AFTER they are dead, and to JUSTIFY their reasoning.

We have. What is it about our reasoning that you have a problem with?

Do the dead have certain natural rights because they used to be alive?

I have pointed out several times why this is the wrong question. Do you not have a response to that?

 

[shanek]

Hi shanek, apologies for my delay in responding to you; I hadn't noticed that you'd replied, and had figured that my post had simply got lost in the pile.

Not a problem. It happens. Unlike some others here on this board, I'm not going to flame you for it or accuse you of putting me on ignore or anything...

I'm detecting a possible note of hyperbole here; I still think that oligarchy is a more accurate description of this state of affairs, however I don't feel such a strong objection here to your usage of the word here to want to take this point any further.

Fine. But in my mind, an oligarchy is much more structured and less chaotic than what we have. Maybe it's more of a duo-oligarchy? (Is that a word?) Anyway, major fights between two ruling parties instead of the rule of a single one.

But surely for other countries which don't have such a principle enshrined in a document like your constitution it's entirely relevant as such a document follows the moral principle, not the other way round?

I don't get what you're asking here. If you're asking if the Constitution protects existing rights rather than granting rights of its own, then you are absolutely correct.

I outlined in my previous post what I considered to be the central contetion of his argument, around which everything else stands or falls; it would appear that your objections lie elsewhere.

My objections are to his tactics, not his conclusions, although obviously I disagree with his conclusions.

The breadth of the implication of your statement here makes me hesitant to draw a conclusion. Could you outline what you consider that meaning to be please?

He's deliberately trying to misrepresent Libertarianism. He claims that the only rights Libertarians really recognize are property rights, or at least that other rights should be sacrificed to property rights. He said as much in his very first post, although as I said he did his best to hide it. He also set up a false dichotomy between property rights and people benefiting from the fruits of their actions; but how can one benefit from the fruits of one's actions without having the rights to the property he gets from it?

 

[daenku32]

So 'missed opportunities' is not 'harm'?

I know libertarians have no problem using government to remove unjust harm from society.

But they consider the elimination or marginalization of opportunities of certain people against their own as being fair game.

How will libertarians ever be able to keep an aristocracy who's power is in wealth from establishing a non-official government, that effectively has all the powers of non-Constitutionally ran dictatorship??

In other words, why is it better for small groups of people to cause 'injustice' to you than a big group of people?

 

[shanek]

Re: So 'missed opportunities' is not 'harm'?

But they consider the elimination or marginalization of opportunities of certain people against their own as being fair game.

Could you please give an example of what you're talking about here?

How will libertarians ever be able to keep an aristocracy who's power is in wealth from establishing a non-official government, that effectively has all the powers of non-Constitutionally ran dictatorship??

Well, that's exactly why anarchy won't work. There does need to be some form of government into place to prevent this from happening. Of course, what you're describing is in a lot of ways what is subtly but not so secretly happening right now.

In other words, why is it better for small groups of people to cause 'injustice' to you than a big group of people?

It isn't per se, but it is easier to defend yourself against a smaller group of people. And the government, through law enforcement, the court system, and national defense, should be there to help you with it. It's pretty much the only thing the government should absolutely be doing.

 

[Reager]

Like? There might be many reasons why the owner wanted it blue, but short of someone using force to make him paint it blue I can't think of any other basic reason than that: for whatever reason, the owner decided that blue was the color the barn should be.

Perhaps the owner bought the land sight unseen and didn't know there was a barn or that it was blue, perhaps the owner left it up to someone else to decide what color to paint the barn, perhaps the owner had wanted the barn red but it had been painted blue by mistake, perhaps it is not in the owner's interest and/or ability to paint the barn a different color. Any of these reasons would be a far cry from your strange assumption that the owner wanted the barn to be blue... Such an assumption would probably be correct most of the time, but you made a universal statement...one that is quite easily proven unfounded. Now, this is really a silly argument, don't you think?

Because we're talking about a system where someone is externally and perhaps even arbitrarily deciding for someone else how much is "too much" for them to inherit, and forcing them to defend the fact that they "need" that much money. You likened their opinion on that to whether or not a barn is painted blue, so in the context of this discussion you ARE demanding that the justify it or have it be taken from them by force.

So, again, if I make "too much" money in my life you are trying to make me justify wanting to give it to my kids when I die. And if I can't, then you win by default and the government can take my money. THAT'S why I say the situation I brought about is comparable to this discussion. In a free country, I shouldn't have to justify it to anybody.

NO NO NO. I am asking what is the FUNDAMENTAL REASON why a person has any claim to decide what is done with the property they amassed during their lifetime after they are DEAD. Is it a "natural" right? Is it granted by the state? Public policy reasons? Some idea of fundamental fairness? I am NOT saying they SHOULDN'T be able to, I'm asking why they SHOULD be able to. And your philosophical pool cannot possibly be as shallow as "because it was theirs when they were alive."

We have. What is it about our reasoning that you have a problem with?

Because you haven't given ANY reason. All you've been doing is stating that your position is the correct one WITHOUT any fundamental justification (which is what I've been asking for), while at the same time demanding others justify why your position SHOULDN'T be the default.

I have pointed out several times why this is the wrong question. Do you not have a response to that?

Sure, here's my response: THEN WHAT IS THE RIGHT QUESTION?!

Please EXPLAIN to me how natural rights applies to a DEAD PERSON and the property they USED TO OWN.

Mike

 

[Snide]

("Her" life? Geez, learn the language..."His" life is correct since the gender is unspecified. "Her" makes the sentence awkward and confusing.)

I feel a need to chime in here before anyone else has a problem with someone saying "her" or "she" when someone speaks generally of an anonymous "someone."

Authors do this. My Torts and Con Law professors did this. I started doing it, because I got sick of kowtowing to PC by saying "he/she," so sometimes I say "he," sometimes "she." People get it when I do.

Appeal to authority, maybe, but the point is that it's common (and perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned) for people to refer to hypothetical/gender-nonspecific examples using the female personal pronoun.

Geez, get over it...

 

[shanek]

Perhaps the owner bought the land sight unseen and didn't know there was a barn or that it was blue,

All you're doing there is switching owners; the previous owner still made that decision.

perhaps the owner left it up to someone else to decide what color to paint the barn,

In which case he was simply deferring his decision to someone else, going with whatever they decided.

perhaps the owner had wanted the barn red but it had been painted blue by mistake,

In which case he obviously felt like it wasn't a big issue or changed his mind or he would have made the painters change it.

perhaps it is not in the owner's interest and/or ability to paint the barn a different color.

Which means he's voluntarily accepting the barn the way it is.

Any of these reasons would be a far cry from your strange assumption that the owner wanted the barn to be blue...

No, it isn't. In each and every case, the owner accepts the barns blueness.

NO NO NO. I am asking what is the FUNDAMENTAL REASON why a person has any claim to decide what is done with the property they amassed during their lifetime after they are DEAD.

Because it's THEIR PROPERTY. What do you want from me?

And your philosophical pool cannot possibly be as shallow as "because it was theirs when they were alive."

How is that shallow? It's THEIRS. THEY earned it. THEY obtained it legally and voluntarily. It's THEIRS. THEY get to say what happens to it. Anything else would certainly be considered takings.

Because you haven't given ANY reason.

YES I HAVE!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE THEY OWN THE PROPERTY!!!!! WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT????

Sure, here's my response: THEN WHAT IS THE RIGHT QUESTION?!

The right question is, what did the person intend to happen with their property while they were alive! You're acting as if a dead person is making the decision, and that's just plain ridiculous.

Please EXPLAIN to me how natural rights applies to a DEAD PERSON and the property they USED TO OWN.

Because WHEN HE OWNED IT he specified what should happen to it upon his death! Like I've been saying for FIVE PAGES NOW!!!!