Libertarianism and Inheritance

[shanek]

He is citing large amounts of evidence for his points.

He's posting evidence for his strawman version of libertarian arguments. I don't need to produce ANYTHING as far as evidence is concerned, I just need to point out that they are strawman arguments. This is basic logic here.

Furthermore, Cain KNOWS they're strawman arguments because he's been corrected on them numerous times in other threads. This is what makes him a liar. He KNOWS that this isn't what libertarians believe, yet he continues to make it appear to be so.

So, how is he winning?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Cain
This is an odd reply.

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
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?

Originally posted by Cain
This is the conclusion of the argument.

What the hell does that mean?

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.

If you want to make a credible point about something I've posted, please use my own words to do so, rather than posting your own bungled paraphrasing as if it were an actual quote.

Go ahead and disagree with that conclusion, I don't care, but attack the reasoning that supports it.

I didn't find any supporting reasoning. You posted a lot of stuff, and then simply declared "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".

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.

It's a conclusion, not an assumption.

What is? You're not making sense.

The assumption is that libertarianism empowers individuals toward self-shaping behavior (stated ideals), but that's mistaken according to the argument.

Whose assumption, and what argument? And again, what are those "stated ideals", and where are you getting your information?

Remember that thing I said about clarity? Any chance you could get someone to proofread your posts before you submit them?

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."

That's nice, but once again, you just seem to be posting stuff that has nothing to do with my comments or questions, hoping nobody will notice your evasiveness.

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.

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.

Don't you think libertarians support this for men as well as women?

And by the way, your use of the term "stated ideals" suggested you had something more than this one summarization. Is this pretty much it? Nothing about liberty, individual sovereignty, stuff like that?

Alternative institutions and ideologies, however, according to the argument, come closer to achieving this ideal.

According to what argument? In attempting to put this statement together with the other, it seems to come out something like "Alternative institutions and ideologies come closer to achieving the ideal of a society where an individual's choices determine his (or her) life than a libertarian society would." Is this what you're trying to say?

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.

This is nonsense. The sentence that immediately follows in the paragraph explains.

Wrong. All you did in that sentence was make a statement about what libertarianism used to mean. Nothing to support your nonsense about confusing property with liberty.

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?

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

What sentences??? Good grief. Get some help before posting, will ya?

And stop being evasive. I asked you a clear question, and a clear answer is called for. If what you're really referring to is "left-wing anarchists", why not just say so, and leave libertarians out of it?

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.

This is exasperating.

If it's exasperating for you, just think how it is for someone trying to pin you down on anything.

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.

That's nice. But you still haven't identified anyone who controls "the nation's resources".

There's no hyperbole because you're using a substantively different example: giving your friend something.

Sorry, wrong again. Your question "So why should a person (by nothing more than nepotism) be allowed to control the nation's resources?" is what prompted my suggestion that you avoid hyperbole, and that suggestion appeared right after I made reference to "the nation's resources". Nice try.

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.

Why is the size of the gift relevant? If you take something that doesn't belong to you, that's usually considered theft. Does that characterization somehow become less appropriate as the amount of the loot increases?

Yes, so someone should read a bit closer.

Yes, then "someone" might have known what "hyperbole" was a reference to.

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

Your dismissiveness of my answer does not equate to my not understanding 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"?

Again, "we" don't all have to have the same response. Even in a libertarian society, 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?

Just thought this exchange was worth repeating, since you didn't respond. I didn't think you'd really want to apply to much scrutiny to the selfishness thing.

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.

That's nice. But the thread you started was about "Libertarianism and Inheritance", not "Some-particular-type-of-libertarianism and Inheritance".

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" .

Okay. Who the hell is Samantha?

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

Not sure what you're going for here. Perhaps it would help if you identified something I've posted that you think should have been an argument, but wasn't? If you can't, then you apparently don't have anything resembling a point.

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.

Actually, those might all be excellent reasons to persuade someone to leave their assets to someone other than their own children. But they hardly qualify as justification for the state to have any claim on those assets. That wasn't what you were going for, was it?

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).

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and deal with the paragraph I think you're talking about.

First, I'll repeat it in its entirity, to minimize concerns about context.

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).

Now, to take it point by point ...

I already established reasons, repeating them numerous times.

None of which even comes close to trumping "none of the government's business".

How does one argue against natural rights?

I haven't done so, so you'd have to ask someone who has.

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.

If those "alternative societies" involve taking assets from some people, just because they have more, and giving to those who have less, just because they have less, that is not conducive to the free choice of the individuals the assets are being taken from. And for many of them, it would also likely reflect "undesirable conclusions". So, if precision is important to you, you probably should have said "undesirable conclusions for anyone dependent on the state for their living expenses", or something like that.

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)?

Feel free to take this up with someone who keeps claiming "natural rights, natural rights, natural rights".

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).

Sorry, can't find a grain of relevance here.

In response to this last bit "'Cause you sure..." I mean, address the argument then. Identify its shortcomings.

What argument? I asked you what your strongest one was, and you said they were reasons, not arguments. Please get your story straight.

As far as "shortcomings", I pretty much pointed that out already. You seem to be mistaking arguments/reasons for persuading someone to make certain decisions about their own assets as arguments/reasons for state involvement in the decision making.

There is a low signal-to-noise ratio in your post.

Back at ya. That stuff about Aristotle was a real hoot.

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 ...

*

Continued evasiveness noted.

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".

You misunderstand again.

Your inability to make a distinction between a request for the tenets of libertarianism and a request for examples of types of libertarianism does not equate to a lack of understanding on my part.

The primary tenets of libertarianism are bound up in the different types of libertarianism.

That's nice. Now, are you ever going to get around to identifying what those tenets are?

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).

Is that it, the "self-shaping" thing?
That's what you were referring to as "libertarianism's stated ideals"? And if so, can you manage to clearly identify the inconsistency you referred to, without jumping through too many hoops to get there?

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

I'm not sure of the relevance, but given the nature of some of your commentary so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if all you're doing with this comment is blaming Shanek for some lack of clarity or responsiveness on your part, or simply trying to spin disagreement with something you've said as a lack of understanding.

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

Yeah, that's one. If it's the only one you've got, why the reference to "libertarianism's stated ideals"? And wouldn't you need to have at least two in order to have an inconsistency?

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

What "conclusion" have I repeated ad nauseum? And what have I said to indicate that I "fail to grasp the meaning" of that conclusion? Remember ... clarity!

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?

I've been hearing you all along, you just can't seem to keep your story straight. I thought your whole thing was about libertarians, now you seem to be answering a question about utilitarian socialists, something I did not ask about. Once again, get someone you trust to help you figure out who you want this discussion to be about, and then get back to me.

Hmph. The foundations of libertarianism.

Can anybody else make any sense out of this comment?

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).

Yes, but again, the thread is about libertarianism and inheritance, not "some-particular-type-of-libertarianism" and inheritance. And you are the one who made reference to "libertarianism's stated ideals". Now you can't seem to identify them.

One view says "the greatest good for the greatest number."

In all the years I've been talking to libertarians, can't say I've run across that type. Sounds more like something a socialist might say.

These empirical libertarians advocate institutions similar to natural rights libertarians, but for different reasons.

That's nice, but it's not very specific. Have you come up with any more actual ideals, besides the "self-shaping" thing?

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.

Here we go again.

Memorize this: Disagreement does not equate to a lack of understanding.

And such reading is not necessary to an understanding of actual libertarianism. I had a complete understanding of it long before I even had a label for it, since it was the common thread behind just about all of my disagreements with the political views of others.

Besides, for all your reading, even you seem to have managed to come up with only one ideal common to libertarians. Sorry, but showing off how many authors you can reference is not an effective substitute for argument.

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

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

See, the trick is to know when to use stuff like the "rolleyes" thing. In this case, it would be a more appropriate reaction to the "anti-intellectual" comment you made than it is to my response to that comment.

As a post-script. You're not the least bit engaging either,

Back at ya.

as you habitually fail to address the argument.

Again, please clearly identify what argument you're talking about, and where I should have, um, "addressed" it. If you can't, then your little derisive wrap-up here just reflects that "low signal-to-noise ratio" thing you yourself mentioned earlier.

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 cease to be amazed at the number of people (especially in a forum like this) who become disagreeable and insulting over having some reasonable scrutiny applied to the things they've posted.

I never ever thought I'd say this but Corplinx had the most reasonable (in retrospect) objections.

After my own cursory review of them, they seem reasonable to me too. But rather than commenting on what others have posted, you should probably devote considerably more attention to making your own posts more clear and responsive.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
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.

Originally posted by mfeldman
Ah yes...the "no good reason" version of an airtight argument.

Unwarranted sarcasm as a substitute for rebuttal? Nice.

In the first place, it doesn't matter whether it's an "argument" or not, it is an answer to your question. Moreover, it was not the only answer to your question. I also included a reason that they should be honored, which was the last thing you quoted just before your own damn response. Look before you post.

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.

That's nice. However, if it's reasonable for you to ask questions to try to understand someone else's position, it's also reasonable for others to ask you questions to try to understand yours. And it's still a mystery why you're so curious about the basis for individual rights, but not about the rights of the state.

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."

No, it's more like asking "Hey what right does the owner have to paint their barn blue?" and getting the response "if you think someone else should get to choose the color, tell us 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?

See above.

Your "above" didn't amount to much, and it certainly didn't answer my question.

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.

What the hell are you talking about? Earlier you griped to someone else about some question I did not answer, which wasn't asked of me in the first place. Now you're griping about something I did answer?


You're not making much sense, and you seem to be doing a bit of spouting off yourself.

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).

The "why" is because it is what "the dead person" wanted when they were alive. Perhaps you should write it down this time.

And by the way, continuing to express sarcasm about the "no good reason not to" argument only makes you look foolish, especially when you choose to ignore questions that just might help you understand this. When there actually is a good reason to do something, the lack of any good reason not to do it is quite relevant.

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 I pointed out before, your "above" doesn't amount to much. And yet again, it most certainly does not address the question I just asked. Please try again.

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.

Because it is at most a sub-issue of the main debate, and at worst a completely different topic entirely.

BS. It's a direct answer to one of the things you were asking about. Dismissing something so relevant suggests you don't actually want an answer to your questions.

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.

I can't make much sense out of the last part of that sentence. Can anyone else translate?

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.

Sorry, but your "above" hasn't improved any since the last time you used it to avoid a response.

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.

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

Again, what the hell are you talking about? You asked a question, and I answered it. Are you just getting cranky because your questions turned out to be less difficult than you thought they'd be?

Is it a "natural" right?

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 didn't. A clue to that can be found in the words "you tell me".

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

Actually, the purpose of my initial response to you was to highlight the lack of balance in your curiosity about rights, and I'd say that mission's long been accomplished. Anything else I responded to was just a bonus.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Darat
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.

It doesn't "survive death". If there is a will, ownership usually transfers to heirs that are living.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Cain's posting style is more along the lines of toying with his prey before he skewers it...

I am a debater, and from what I can tell here, Cain is winning the debate.

He is citing large amounts of evidence for his points.

Can you cite what you consider to be one of the best examples of this "evidence", and clearly identify the point it supports?

 

[BoulderHead`]

One of the arguments against libertarianism that I've been experimenting with lately questions its commitment to meritocracy. The following first appeared (in embryonic form) in an e-mail to a friend explaining one problem. Instead of duplicating past efforts, repeating myself over and over again, I've finally decided to take an extra minute to write a pithy argument, save it, and perhaps eventually publish it on Mike Huben's site. I'll vet part of it here.

Though libertarians tend to disagree among themselves over the most just form of taxation (or the least unjust, if any), they generally stand together, in my experience, against the estate tax. "How dare the government seize a person's property without their consent."

Warren Buffet, the billionaire investor and second richest man in the world, denounced the repeal of the estate tax, saying it is "the equivalent in economic terms of choosing our Olympic
team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics. We would regard that as absolute folly in terms of athletic competition. We [the U.S.] have come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world. You have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

I do not see how a libertarian can substantively challenge the analogy or the observation. She might charge the comparison is drastically overstated, and wealth bestows only minor advantages. But notice here we are merely disagreeing over the empirical effects of privilege, a spectrum of opinion ranging from decisive to negligible. Suppose, as most people do, that wealth does in fact confer significant advantages. Would a libertarian then agree an estate tax is justified in the interest of fostering a society more liable to reward talent and ability? The answer, presumably, is no.

Instead I think libertarians appeal to an alternative set of values, one that claims (nearly) absolute property rights take precedence over a system that is more inclined to compensate an individual's natural capabilities.

Their counter-argument, then, boils down to "so what?" Property rights trump all, even meritocracy. Big deal.

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.

I see two more possible objections, the stronger of them an argument for socialism. On this view liberalism, though an improvement, does not go far enough. Milton Friedman makes a similar argument (as reductio ad abusrudm) in _Capitalism and Freedom_.

This shows a misunderstanding of more than just Libertarianism. You seem to be arguing in favor of controlled circumstances while attempting to equate such control with “free” choice. If your circumstances are being controlled, so is your freedom.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

This shows a misunderstanding of more than just Libertarianism. You seem to be arguing in favor of controlled circumstances while attempting to equate such control with “free” choice. If your circumstances are being controlled, so is your freedom.

Welcome to the forum, Boulderhead. I can assure you that I've made just this very point to Cain on numerous occasions. He simply just does not want to understand.

 

[BoulderHead`]

Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Welcome to the forum, Boulderhead. I can assure you that I've made just this very point to Cain on numerous occasions. He simply just does not want to understand.

Greetings Shanek,
Thank you for the welcome !
I haven’t read more than the first and last pages of this thread, so I quoted from the original post to see if the self-contradictory assumptions had been corrected. From what you’ve told me, they haven’t, which is unfortunate because it is from such a shaky foundation I imagine the other arguments to be built.

 

[Cain]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer

This is an incredible non-response, probably with few counter-parts in the history of JREF.

The errors and obtuse questions have been corrected numerous times, yet you persist, insisting even more so than last time to break apart every single sentence.

If you cannot distinguish reasons, from assumptions, from conclusions, then I see no point discussing these matters at length.

Instead of going through point-by-point I'll use a couple model examples. Your stubborn desire to require explanation for the most innocous sentences only contributes to and compounds your unrivaled stupidity.

Just thought this exchange was worth repeating, since you didn't respond. I didn't think you'd really want to apply to much scrutiny to the selfishness thing.

I dismissed Shanek's accusation of selfishness as both beside the point and humorously ironic. Yet, you continue to press it, as though it possesses any meaning beyond a simple ad hominem.

Sorry, wrong again. Your question "So why should a person (by nothing more than nepotism) be allowed to control the nation's resources?" is what prompted my suggestion that you avoid hyperbole, and that suggestion appeared right after I made reference to "the nation's resources". Nice try.

Once more, as I stated all to clearly, that was a direct reference to and adaption on Warren Buffet's argument. Interestingly, the original as well as the subsequent arguments are left untouched, unscathed. Instead we're subjected to a series of witless comments like "What the hell does that mean?"

Why is the size of the gift relevant? If you take something that doesn't belong to you, that's usually considered theft. Does that characterization somehow become less appropriate as the amount of the loot increases?

First, this is the crudest, blandest form of libertarianism, referred to earlier as nothing but "it's mine!" Of course I challenge the unexamined libertarian assumption that there is a moral continuity between small- and large-scale holdings (especially in the case of land). Think about it for two seconds: You don't think there's a difference between somebody controlling a acre of land versus the entire planet?

A comedic interlude:

A person [Say, SAMANTHA] 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" .

Okay. Who the hell is Samantha?

That's nice. But the thread you started was about "Libertarianism and Inheritance", not "Some-particular-type-of-libertarianism and Inheritance".

Oh, man. The initial argument challenges a (particularly utilitarian-) libertarian's near-intuitive belief that their system is meritocratic. Since and throughout I have been the one emphasizing the distinction between these views because their objections will be different. When someone starts to say, "It's mine!! Natural rights!" the assumptions behind that view then need to be examined. They were subjected to fairly extensive criticism in my above post, blithely ignored.

I've been hearing you all along, you just can't seem to keep your story straight. I thought your whole thing was about libertarians, now you seem to be answering a question about utilitarian socialists, something I did not ask about. Once again, get someone you trust to help you figure out who you want this discussion to be about, and then get back to me.

Oh, my.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

This shows a misunderstanding of more than just Libertarianism. You seem to be arguing in favor of controlled circumstances while attempting to equate such control with “free” choice. If your circumstances are being controlled, so is your freedom.

The first sentence here is rather revealing, but never mind.

The objection above rests on the last sentence, which highlights the hollowness of a libertarian conception of freedom. We can turn to a well-worn example:

Two people are stranded on an island. The first person was pushed (i.e. forced) out of an airplane, yet, oddly enough, given a parachute. The second person was aboard the S.S. Minow, which went down because of an unexpected storm (all of the crew and other passengers died).

Despite the fact that both men are on the same island, experience the same plight, a libertarian (negative-liberty) view maintains that one of them is not free (or less free). Only the former's circumstances were "controlled," strictly speaking. This is absurd.

Moreover, if we want to introduce another well-known problem for the natural rights position, we can have the first person, the one forced out of a plane, claim the entire island as his property. The second person, who unforutnately washes ashore weeks later, can then make a contract to become a powerless servant. Or, he can be told to leave. After all, we're talking about private property.

It's a cliched example, and I think a poster named Suddenly directly confronted Shanek with a highly similar, if not identical, scenario. Most people, thankfully, have a more robust defintion of liberty, one that takes personal autonomy seriously.

"Left to its own devices, the free-market always seeks a workforce that is hungry, desperate, and cheap -- a workforce that is anything but free." -- Eric Schlosser, _Reefer Madness_

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Despite the fact that both men are on the same island, experience the same plight, a libertarian (negative-liberty) view maintains that one of them is not free (or less free). Only the former's circumstances were "controlled," strictly speaking. This is absurd.

You have been corrected on this bull$#!7 numerous times. THEY ARE BOTH EXACTLY AS FREE AS THE OTHER. The difference is that one of them is a victim of the initiation of force; he would not be on the island were it not for the deliberate and unprovoked actions of another. Therefore, he would be completely within his rights to seek a redress of grievances against the person who pushed him out of the plane. The other is just an unfortunate person, and so he has no one to seek action against.

You're trying to make the guy who came there by accident have some sort of claim against someone else like the first one does, which is ludicrous.

"Left to its own devices, the free-market always seeks a workforce that is hungry, desperate, and cheap -- a workforce that is anything but free." -- Eric Schlosser, _Reefer Madness_

Oh, yes, and we all know how accurate THAT guy has a reputation of being. (Hint: This is the same schmoe that wrote "Fast Food Nation.")

 

[BoulderHead`]

The first sentence here is rather revealing, but never mind.

It’s ok if you’d like to address it, for it is the truth.

The objection above rests on the last sentence, which highlights the hollowness of a libertarian conception of freedom.

Do not attempt to be evasive; my complaint has nothing to do with “the hollowness of a libertarian conception of freedom”. I am asking you flat out to explain how being controlled equates to being free. I understand that you wish to use analogy to demonstrate a point, but prior to embarking on that journey I expect you to deal head-on with this matter and admit to the contradiction. [edit] Because I suspect what we're going to actually be talking about isn't freedom at all, but just someone's version of what seems fair being forced upon others.

"Left to its own devices, the free-market always seeks a workforce that is hungry, desperate, and cheap -- a workforce that is anything but free." -- Eric Schlosser, _Reefer Madness_

"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
- Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Cain]

It’s ok if you’d like to address it, for it is the truth.

What I am getting at has in fact been discussed extensively in this thread. But I see no reason to concern myself with that distraction.

Do not attempt to be evasive; this has nothing to do with “the hollowness of a libertarian conception of freedom”.

Simple nonsense. Idiosyncratic defintions of "freedom" has everything to do with what's under discussion. See again the sentence in question: "If your circumstances are being controlled, so is your freedom."

I do not dispute that. I went on to describe a simple scenario, one where force was initiated, and a person subsequently made unfree. In a parallel example, there was no controlling force, just bad luck. Yet both are equally free (or unfree).

I am asking you flat out to explain how being controlled equates to being free. I understand that you wish to use analogy to demonstrate your point, but prior to embarking on that journey I expect you to deal head-on with this matter and admit to the contradiction.

Where did I say or suggest that "being controlled equates to being free"? It's worth noting that early you said that I merely "seem" to be arguing such and such. No specific line of text has ever been provided.

In my opening post I discussed how "uncontrollable circumstances" often interferes with our ability to make free choices, as in the case of a person who is born into poverty and lacks the opportunity and education to shape her life. Quote: "...[Libertarians seem to be arguing] for a social-economic system that allows a person's place in life to be determined by uncontrollable circumstances rather than free choices... "

"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
- Murray N. Rothbard [anarcho-capitalist]

Murray Rothbard is one fairly cool dude in my book, but that's just wrong on multiple levels. If you think it's a relatively good excuse for preying on the hungry, desperate and poor, well, less power to them. Interestingly, even if a person is destitute -- through no fault of their own -- starvation and hunger is what they deserve. The Market says so. Although, I'm curious, what productive value do idle heirs provide? I definitely think that's the best way to "earn" a living.
________________________________

Shanek- I see you enjoy spewing your all too typcial bullsh*t.

Near identical situation and language from earlier:

And that's a hollow definition of liberty. So if your plane crashes and you're stranded on a desert island, then you're free? Suppose Dr. Strangelove kidnaps me, and puts me on the same island. In that case, I am presumably unfree (because a conscious force interfered in my life). But you, you're perfectly free.

Freedom is the absence of force. In the former scenario, I can use my intellect and whatever resources I can get together to get off the island. In the latter scenario, you can't. The fact that you refuse to grasp this basic difference shows why you have nothing of all to offer to any debate about freedom. You refuse to even see the concept. You base everything on what YOU have, and if one person has something and another doesn't, even if the first person earned it and the second didn't, you scream "unfair."

Now:

You have been corrected on this bull$#!7 numerous times. [above??] THEY ARE BOTH EXACTLY AS FREE AS THE OTHER. The difference is that one of them is a victim of the initiation of force; he would not be on the island were it not for the deliberate and unprovoked actions of another. Therefore, he would be completely within his rights to seek a redress of grievances against the person who pushed him out of the plane. The other is just an unfortunate person, and so he has no one to seek action against.

You're trying to make the guy who came there by accident have some sort of claim against someone else like the first one does, which is ludicrous.

*Whew* No, Shanek, it goes to our understanding of liberty. Natural rights oriented libertarians are concerned primarily with processes rather than outcomes. It's then perfectly possible for a person's autonomy to be constrained by circumstances -- constrained in a way that most of us consider that person even less free than otherwise-- without any violation of so-called "natural rights" taking place.

But there's a deeper, more responsible, more insightful understanding of freedom, one that, in the case of government and other powerful establishments, involves fashioning those institutions that affect our lives. The Founding Fathers, of whom you claim ideological ancestry, rejected "taxation without representation," not taxation altogether.

A final and recurring question: Why do we have those natural rights that you've specified? What's the reason, interest or foundation? Of course, I don't expect you (of all people) to even be capable of answring this question. It's simply a gaping hole worth pointing out every once and awhile.

 

[BoulderHead`]

Where did I say or suggest that "being controlled equates to being free"?
It's worth noting that early you said that I merely "seem" to be arguing such and such. No specific line of text has ever been provided.

Hello Cain,

Let’s go back to the start and examine something you said from your first post in an effort to show you where I got such an idea;

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.

Are you, or are you not, suggesting that free choice cannot exist in the presence of this uncontrolled circumstance?

Do you, or do you not, recommend that ‘circumstances’ be controlled such that an environment promoting what you consider to be “free choices” is fostered?

If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, than defining the term “free choices” should help to bring us to speedy resolution. To be honest, I think life itself is pretty much an uncontrolled circumstance, but still I don’t really question my ability to make choices. What exactly is “free”, I ask, especially so if you advocate coercive power of government be applied to select individuals, who have harmed no one, for a supposed benefit to other individuals. This sounds more like a wealth distribution scheme than free choice. To tell the truth, what I see being argued isn’t what I consider “free choice” at all. It does, however, seem more like an “equal opportunity” or “level playing field” idea. I’m all for shooting straight from the hip and using the most appropriate language to convey my meaning, so it this is what you really are pushing then I’d like to hear you say it.

Over to you.

 

[BoulderHead`]

If you think it's a relatively good excuse for preying on the hungry, desperate and poor, well, less power to them.

What if you don’t think like that? Then it would require a good argument be heard, something I’m not hearing yet. Maybe in a separate thread sometime?

…Interestingly, even if a person is destitute -- through no fault of their own -- starvation and hunger is what they deserve. The Market says so.

Life can be rough; this is in fact the basic nature of this world, and always has been. I can sympathize with the desire to improve the situation, but it’s in the manner of approaching an improved situation where problems and dissagreement arise.

Although, I'm curious, what productive value do idle heirs provide?

What you may fail to see is that it really isn’t any of your business. Have you ever asked an heir if they are in fact useless to the world?

I definitely think that's the best way to "earn" a living.

Haha, I agree, it’s the stuff dreams are made of; living off the resources of another. Are you able to see that this essentially is what you advocate doing, only not by a freely given inheritance but by a forcefully expropriated one?

 

[Cain]

Taken slightly out of order:

. It does, however, seem more like an “equal opportunity” or “level playing field” idea. I’m all for shooting straight from the hip and using the most appropriate language to convey my meaning, so it this is what you really are pushing then I’d like to hear you say it.

Over to you.

Boulder, I only suggest you read most of thread because this has been covered. To choose a previous sentence, almost at random:

I have already replied to this criticism by appealing to fairness and equal opportunity. Yes, all of us are products of circumstance -- genetic and environmental -- but that does not prohibit us from seeking to create a more fair society.

The phrase "level playing field" has also been thrown around more than once.

Let’s go back to the start and examine something you said from your first post in an effort to show you where I got such an idea;

[Cain in italics]
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.

Are you, or are you not, suggesting that free choice cannot exist in the presence of this uncontrolled circumstance?

Yes, and let's place emphasis on uncontrolled circumstances because earlier, in your previous posts, you spoke of "controlled circumstances."

Do you, or do you not, recommend that ‘circumstances’ be controlled such that an environment promoting what you consider to be “free choices” is fostered?

Sure.

If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, than defining the term “free choices” should help to bring us to speedy resolution. To be honest, I think life itself is pretty much an uncontrolled circumstance, but still I don’t really question my ability to make choices. What exactly is “free”, I ask, especially so if you advocate coercive power of government be applied to select individuals, who have harmed no one, for a supposed benefit to other individuals. This sounds more like a wealth distribution scheme than free choice. To tell the truth, what I see being argued isn’t what I consider “free choice” at all.

Yes, of course, life itself is uncontrolled. I never consented to choosing to exist -- it just happened. Uncontrolled circumstances can be both extremely positive or negative, but since, by definition, they are uncontrolled, we cannot take either credit or responsibility for them.

Michael J. Sandel, the communitarian philosopher, made an interesting comment on genetic engineering in last month's issue of _The Atlantic Monthly_:

Why, after all, do the successful owe anything to the least-advantaged members of society? The best answer to this question leans heavily on file notion of giftedness. The natural talents that enable the successful to flourish are not their own doing but, rather, their good fortune--a result of the genetic lottery. If our genetic endowments are gifts, rather than achievements for which we can claim credit, it is a mistake and a conceit to assume that we are entitled to the full measure of the bounty they reap in a market economy. We therefore have an obligation to share this bounty with those who, through no fault of their own, lack comparable gifts.

A lively sense of the contingency of our gifts--a consciousness that none of us is wholly responsible for his or her success--saves a meritocratic society from sliding into the smug assumption that the rich are rich because they are more deserving than the poor. Without this, the successful would become even more likely than they are now to view themselves as self-made and self-sufficient, and hence wholly responsible for their success. Those at the bottom of society would be viewed not as disadvantaged, and thus worthy of a measure of compensation, but as simply unfit, and thus worthy of eugenic repair.

For analogous reasons I chose the inheritance tax. A short-lived exchange with Corplinx touched upon these topics.
_________________________________

Page break because I consider the following issue less relevant (and because you replied in a separate post).

[snipped]

Life can be rough; this is in fact the basic nature of this world, and always has been. I can sympathize with the desire to improve the situation, but it’s in the manner of approaching an improved situation where problems and dissagreement arise.

As I said earlier, I enthusiastically welcome disagreement. I do not, however, look forward to dogmatic, knee-jerk reaction such as "it's mine." This raises a fundamental question, one that I have emphasizing throughout: if so-called negative rights do not result in the best conditions, in fact diminishes the quality of life for many people, then do we reject it? Basic values...

What you may fail to see is that it really isn’t any of your business. Have you ever asked an heir if they are in fact useless to the world?

I said idle; I do not ususally describe people, including heirs, as "useless to the world." Moreover, I think that if we want to live in a competitive market economy -- personally, I don't -- then of course we should strive toward a equal opportunity and a level playing field.

I believe George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect that the rich oppose equality of income because they would then have to rely on talent and labor to distinguish themselves rather than their mother's inheritance. Of course he said this with great rhetorical flourish that is completely lost in my paraphrase.

Haha, I agree, it’s the stuff dreams are made of; living off the resources of another. Are you able to see that this essentially is what you advocate doing, only not by a freely given inheritance but by a forcefully expropriated one?

I am not at all suggesting for one second that a person would, because of government transfers, never have to work. In fact, the main social goods I've been discussing throughout, education and healthcare, make it far more difficult for people to offer excuses and live off others.

In addition it's worth noting that most of us, including libertarians, lived off the resources of their parents for the beginning of our lives. In an even larger sense, we're lucky to live in society that has accumulated vast resources of wealth and knowledge. Inasmuch as I, Cain, would exist* in a dispposessed community, regardless of my efforts sacrifices, I -- nor anyone else -- could never come close to achieving the security and comfort that most of us in welfare states enjoy today. A simple, ego-shattering fact.

*Ignoring abstruse metaphysical considerations of personal identity.

 

[shanek]

Murray Rothbard is one fairly cool dude in my book, but that's just wrong on multiple levels. If you think it's a relatively good excuse for preying on the hungry, desperate and poor, well, less power to them.

Explain in detail, with references, how the free market "preys on the hungry, desperate, and poor." I've posted reams of evidence in this forum in the past to show that the free market makes people less hungry, desperate, and poor.

Interestingly, even if a person is destitute -- through no fault of their own -- starvation and hunger is what they deserve. The Market says so.

No, it doesn't. Another of your strawman lies.

*Whew* No, Shanek, it goes to our understanding of liberty. (blah blah blah)

Cain, I am SICK AND TIRED of you putting words in my mouth and tellin g me what my beliefs and motivations are. I have answered your questions several different ways and given you many different aspects to it, and each time you react the same way. I reiterate my conclusion that you are a worthless poster with nothing positive to contribute.

A final and recurring question: Why do we have those natural rights that you've specified? What's the reason, interest or foundation? Of course, I don't expect you (of all people) to even be capable of answring this question.

I HAVE answered it several times, you liar. We have it for the same reason we have two hands, vision, and the ability to walk. You're acting (as usual) like a foaming-at-the-mouth Creationist who INSISTS that these things must have some sort of design or purpose behind them. The fact is, we have them because that's what we have unless someone or something takes it away from us. You already know that, but you won't listen, because your bloated, selfish ego makes you want to believe you know what libertarians believe despite what libertarians are sitting here trying to tell you.

 

[Cain]

Cain, I am SICK AND TIRED of you putting words in my mouth and tellin g me what my beliefs and motivations are. I have answered your questions several different ways and given you many different aspects to it, and each time you react the same way. I reiterate my conclusion that you are a worthless poster with nothing positive to contribute.

Oh, it's certainly true you've answered my questions several different ways, and those inconsistencies always worth noting (see above).

This, of course, is not a reply at all. How have I mischaracterized your beliefs or motivations? Are you suggesting natural rights proponents are NOT more concerned with processes rather than outcomes? Where did I say anything regarding your motivations?

Which reminds me:

Re: natural rights

I HAVE answered it several times, you liar. We have it for the same reason we have two hands, vision, and the ability to walk. You're acting (as usual) like a foaming-at-the-mouth Creationist who INSISTS that these things must have some sort of design or purpose behind them. The fact is, we have them because that's what we have unless someone or something takes it away from us. You already know that, but you won't listen, because your bloated, selfish ego makes you want to believe you know what libertarians believe despite what libertarians are sitting here trying to tell you.

I hope you do not consider this an argument. This is a non-sequitur. The reason why we have vision, two-hands and the ability to walk is because of a process known as evolution. Those characteristics allow us to pass along our genes. One well-known theorist has likened us to "lumbering robots," mere "vehicles" (seemingly) designed to make more copies of ourselves. This also explains the origins of aggression and jealousy, love and empathy.

Locke believed that we are the property of God, sent into the world and "made to last during his... pleasure." Even political philosophy was not exempted from the far-reaching effects of Darwin. Who had natural rights? Homo habilis? Homo erectus?* This immaterial endowment, which sounds like a soul, also falls victim, as I've said, to Hume's Is/Ought distinction. Moral rights are something that we should have; they should be respected. You're claiming that we have them by virtue of physical reality, and that view of natural law etc. traces back primarily through religious/God views (Founding Fathers, Locke, Aquinas, Aristotle). The whole concept is highly questionable, your unsubstantiated assertions in particular.

*Question: Can I say chimps, orangutans, and gorillas have natural rights, too? I hope so because, as a fairly committed vegan, it would be a shame if they didn't. Besides, most of them have two hands, vision, and an ability to walk.

Originally posted by shanek Explain in detail, with references, how the free market "preys on the hungry, desperate, and poor." I've posted reams of evidence in this forum in the past to show that the free market makes people less hungry, desperate, and poor.

No, it doesn't. Another of your strawman lies.

Remaining consistent with prior postings I have relegated this side issue to the bottom. I can't help but laugh at your "reams of evidence," only compounded, rather brilliantly I must admit, by a later accusation of Creationism. Instead I think you're a little too emotionally invested in a particular ideology -- sound like a certain group of people? -- to accept any amount of empirical evidence contrary to preconceived beliefs.

In the case of a natural rights view it doesn't really matter whether or not the market produces the best, or even what we might consider to be good, outcomes. You've yet to learn the distinction unfortunately...

*********************************
*********************************
*********************************


The Shanek Drinking Game (version 1.0). Play along at home!

Each time Shanek speaks in CAPS, take one shot. *

For every COMPLETE PHRASE OR SENTENCE in CAPS, take two shots.

Take two shots for each time Shanek alludes to his "prominent" role in the Libertarian Party.

For each time Shanek calls someone or something "pathetic," take one shot.

For each time Shanek pouts "strawman," take one shot.

For each time Shanek cries "liar," take two shots.

Take three shots for each time Shanek unctuously accuses another of "bigotry."

*Any time Shanek uses either of the words PATHETIC, STRAWMAN, LIAR, or BIGOT, add one shot (e.g. LIAR = 3 shots).

If two or more of the above four words appears together in a sentence, then add their base amounts and multiply by two (e.g. lying bigot = 10 shots [2(2+3)]. LYING BIGOT = 14 shots [2(3+4)). Keep your designated calculator handy.

For each time Shanek extols the power, beauty, wonders etc. of the free-market, take one shot.

Shanek's propaganda for the Libertarian Party, or his worshipful praise for guru Browne warrants (at least) one shot.

Take one shot for each time Shanek refers to the state as oppressive or inefficient (by extension this applies to oppressive and inefficient regulations).

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: When he mentions oppressive government restrictions on firearms, take two shots.

Take two shots when he rails against the following insidious government agencies: IRS, ATF, FDA (cap lock bonuses do not apply unless their full titles are spelled out).

For each time Shanek speaks positively about the government, or a particular law or regulation, take four shots.

For each time Shanek mentions a short-coming of the free-market, take five shots.

If Shanek says something to the effect, "I'll need to re-examine my belief(s)..." take one shot... in the head. Nah, just chug. Chug and never look back. Note: if you think Shanek has said this, then acknowledge the strong possibility that you might already be quite drunk.

 

[BillyTK]

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.

You know the old adage about whichever party you vote for, it's the same government which gets in? Regardless of the apparent differences between the main US political parties, it's still the same power structures they manage, and the same interests they serve; the only difference is the degree. That's why I'd call it an oligarchy.

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.

This goes back to your point that:

in the absence of the rule of law all such debates [about the il/legitimacy of inheritance tax] 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

I may have misunderstood your point, which I took to mean that rule of law needs to be established before debates about the il/legitimacy of things like inheritance tax could tax place, but we seem to be in agreement that these principles need to be established before rule of law can prevail. This all goes back to my question of why you consider inheritance tax to be illegitimate, but I think we've established that one by now.

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

Careful now, you might give the impression that you would disagree with him regardless of the arguments he presents.

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.

There's probably as many variations of natural rights as there are stars in the sky, but the most common one is Lockean natural rights. This is an argument for property rights, and proceeds from the principle that by nature we are all sovereign individuals; we are free because we own ourselves, and ownership of property—as well as other rights, such as voting and freedom of speech—proceeds from this. The similarity with views espoused by Libertarians (and to some extent, even objectivism) may be co-incidental, I guess.

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?

Because property rights are not absolute; for instance, there's a difference between the value of my labour to an employer, and the value such a person gets for the fruits of my labour in the marketplace. I can only do that if rights are relative, i.e. I can pass title of my property to others—if I can't, then title transfer can only be by force; it's mine until someone takes it off me—in which case, I'm not entitled to all the fruits of my labour, although we then require a subsequent argument to establish how much of the fruits of my labour I'm reasonably entitled to.
_____________________________________
(Sorry for the length of this, but because of time limitations it's expedient for me to tie two separate conversations into one thread. Hope you don't mind.)

Originally posted by BillyTK
<slightly off-topic>Market anarchy or anarcho-syndicalism/social libertarianism?

Originally posted by shanek
I was referring to "an aristocracy who's power is in wealth...establishing a non-official government, that effectively has all the powers of non-Constitutionally ran dictatorship." That's increasingly (yet subtly) what we have now.

You've pre-empted my next question here, but what I was originally wondering was about your comment that anarchy won't work (in preventing these monopolies); particularly, which kind of anarchism you're referring to and why it won't work in this context? (This is probably getting a bit too far off topic, so feel free to ignore, because the 'meat' of the argument is coming up).

Originally posted by BillyTK
How would (your) Libertarianism fix this?

Originally posted by shanek
By chaining down the government, limiting it only to a certain set of functions. Our government functioned for a hundred years like that with no serious abrogation of our liberties (other than the slavery thing, which was inherent from the very beginning).

Okay, but I don't see how this would deal with a wealthy and powerful aristocracy without either infringing on their property rights (for instance, by an inheritance tax to hinder the formation of this aristocracy) or by using the powers of government to dismantle such an aristocracy once it occurs (with the possibility that this power could be misused)?

 

[BoulderHead`]

Boulder, I only suggest you read most of thread because this has been covered. To choose a previous sentence, almost at random:

Ok, it is in fact true that I haven’t read beyond the first and last pages, but when I asserted that your comments showed a “misunderstanding of more than just Libertarianism”, you seemed to take issue with it, which is why I have been trying to explain myself.

I have already replied to this criticism by appealing to fairness and equal opportunity. Yes, all of us are products of circumstance -- genetic and environmental -- but that does not prohibit us from seeking to create a more fair society.

The phrase "level playing field" has also been thrown around more than once.

Let me speak frankly on this and be as clear about my position as possible; I have been attempting to show that you used the words “free choice” when in fact you didn’t actually mean free choice at all. Further, that you misrepresented the Libertarian position by painting what you really meant in the language of free choice and stating that Libertarians claim to support such a thing. Here it is again;

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.

The Libertarian position is not about using government to provide for a “fair society”, or a “level playing field”, etc. Anyone familiar with Libertarian ideals knows that this is true. In other words, there is a difference between a “free society” and a “fair society”.

Yes, and let's place emphasis on uncontrolled circumstances because earlier, in your previous posts, you spoke of "controlled circumstances."

This is because you were complaining about “uncontrolled circumstances”, which suggested to me you were advocating “controlled circumstances” (through government intrusion).

Originally posted by BoulderHead;
Do you, or do you not, recommend that ‘circumstances’ be controlled such that an environment promoting what you consider to be “free choices” is fostered?

Original posted by Cain;
Sure.

Right, and as I was saying above, it turns out “controlled circumstances” truly is what you want to see implemented, as you have acknowledged. I have pointed out that “controlled” and “free” do not have the same meaning.

The words of Michael J. Sandel, while interesting, are not relevant to the points I’ve been attempting to make. I have not engaged you for discussion of the merits, and justifications for, government control. I have solely been attempting to demonstrate the faults in your original post, and hope that I have done a thorough enough job of doing so that you can acknowledge;

1) “Fairness” was painted as “free choice”.
2) The Libertarian position was purported to support “fairness”.

Now, if you can accept this as a “fair” analysis, then I believe the work I set out to perform with my opening remarks is complete, and that I have supported my assertion (which to reiterate, was about “misunderstanding”), and we can move forward into deeper and more interesting matters.

------- a word on reading all the posts in this thread --------

Yes, it is my intention to set aside the necessary time to read the bulk of it. While it may be true that the matters I have touched on were previously addressed, you were not coming across to me as recognizing the fault. Additionally, I always try to pay special attention to an “opener”, feeling that such a post should be worded as precisely as possible to convey the truest meaning it’s author is trying to get across. Being able to go back to an opening post also helps to reduce sidetracking (something I have been guilty of on more than one occasion).

Now, have I been successful in defending my position, or is something lacking?