Libertarian property rights & problem of original...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Libertarian property rights & problem of original...

Page 3 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Libertarian property rights & problem of original...

Author

Message

Rod Speed...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:24 am

Guest

Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:47:29 -0800, Coffee's For Closers wrote:

In article <hcct6k71edv at (no spam) news6.newsguy.com>, mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net
says...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:32 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Zinnic
zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
Pretty weak! You can make your own furniture. Try making some land
!!

Land that is far from people is pretty cheap. What makes land
valuable is other people and what they have made. Land is as much
a product of labor as furniture.

Sure it is! And the moon is made of green cheese produced in
Wisconsin.

So how do you explain the difference between the cost a land in
remote areas, versus land in cities?

Lets make sure we understand the language before we go any further.
You would do well to grasp the labor theory of "cost". For labor is
the only coin with which any honest man can pay.

http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/LaborTheoryOfCost.php

But your question is well addressed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Land_rent

And more specifically addressed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_von_Th%C3%BCnen

And the reality of all of this is simply that land rent (what you see
as price or value) is always reflective of population both proximate
and total. We leave aside _WHY_ people want to _USE_ some location
and concentrate on the reality that all locations are up for bid.
The more bidders there are then the higher the rent will be.

Why is an acre of ground space forty miles outside of Smallville,
Montana, cheaper than an acre of ground space in New York City?

Already answered.

Do you really think that has nothing to do with the amount of human
labour put into those environments?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. But a lot in the burbs is valued
based, not on the labor of a land owner, but on the labor of those who
built whatever it is that entices people to the particular locale.
The location and the land is naturally occurring and has no cost. It
is just "there".
[/quote]
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that the best it ever managed is truck driver, for a while.

Zinnic...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:22 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 1:54 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:47:29 -0800, Coffee's For Closers wrote:
In article <hcct6k71... at (no spam) news6.newsguy.com>, mik... at (no spam) verizon.net says...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:32 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:44:55 -0700 (PDT),Zinnic<zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net
wrote:
Pretty weak! You can make your own furniture. Try making some land
!!

Land that is far from people is pretty cheap. What makes land
valuable is other people and what they have made. Land is as much a
product of labor as furniture.

Sure it is! And the moon is made of green cheese produced in
Wisconsin.

So how do you explain the difference between the cost a land in remote
areas, versus land in cities?

Lets make sure we understand the language before we go any further. You
would do well to grasp the labor theory of "cost". For labor is the only
coin with which any honest man can pay.

http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/LaborTheoryOfCost.php

But your question is well addressed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Land_rent

And more specifically addressed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_von_Th%C3%BCnen

And the reality of all of this is simply that land rent (what you see as
price or value) is always reflective of population both proximate and
total. We leave aside _WHY_ people want to _USE_ some location and
concentrate on the reality that all locations are up for bid. The more
bidders there are then the higher the rent will be.

Why is an acre of ground space forty miles outside of Smallville,
Montana, cheaper than an acre of ground space in New York City?

Already answered.

Do you really think that has nothing to do with the amount of human
labour put into those environments?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. But a lot in the burbs is valued
based, not on the labor of a land owner, but on the labor of those who
built whatever it is that entices people to the particular locale. The
location and the land is naturally occurring and has no cost. It is just
"there".

--
I agree. Land (and seas) should be considered as being on lease to[/quote]
present populations. Future populations are unable to make a bid for
ownership so land purchase (for eternity?) is as unfair as is inside
trading.
So called 'ownership' of land should entitle the 'owners' to the
right of first refusal to pay to renew their leaseholds, or to be
recompensed at the discretion of the population that confers value on
the land.
IMO this is not Socialism but the communalism exemplified by mutual
agreements to pay for community services.
Zinnic

*Anarcissie*...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:25 am

Guest

On Oct 30, 2:54 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

[quote]Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. But a lot in the burbs is valued
based, not on the labor of a land owner, but on the labor of those who
built whatever it is that entices people to the particular locale. The
location and the land is naturally occurring and has no cost. It is just
"there".
[/quote]
There is also the cost of keeping other people off the land,
that is, propertizing it and defending the property as such.
That could include military and police operations.

Mark M....

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:08 pm

Guest

Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Mark M. wrote:
Fred Weiss wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

As you can see, Fred is hopelessly ensnared in justification of
ownership
as opposed to rational expectations or common good.

Fred proudly advocates private property and consider it essential for
the common good.

Which is more important, the private good or the common good?

Mark M.

There is no common good. There may only be goods in common.
[/quote]
Proving the negative, eh, Les?

To do that you must show there is no possible condition, physical environment,
knowledge, tool, technology, that has ever existed or ever could exist that
could be a universal boon to humankind or even a boon to a specific inclusive
community of humans that happen to inhabit a particular geographical area.

Not one.

How will you prove it?
[quote]
The private. Oxygen is the ultimate private good.
[/quote]
To prove the negative you have to list every possible common good and prove that
in every particular case there is at least one person who does not benefit. And
no fair counting people who are doing things counter-productive to the common
good concept.

For example, you can't say a crime free environment is a common bad for a criminal.

Let's see the proof.

Mark M.

Les Cargill...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:51 pm

Guest

Mark M. wrote:
[quote]Les Cargill wrote:
Mark M. wrote:
Fred Weiss wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

As you can see, Fred is hopelessly ensnared in justification of
ownership
as opposed to rational expectations or common good.

Fred proudly advocates private property and consider it essential for
the common good.

Which is more important, the private good or the common good?

Mark M.

There is no common good. There may only be goods in common.

Proving the negative, eh, Les?

To do that you must show there is no possible condition, physical
environment, knowledge, tool, technology, that has ever existed or ever
could exist that could be a universal boon to humankind or even a boon
to a specific inclusive community of humans that happen to inhabit a
particular geographical area.

Not one.

How will you prove it?
[/quote]
There is no collective anything, only individuals. Public
goods are explicitly nonrival and nonexcludable, the common
*weal* is a social construct of language only. And the common
weal is not what people mean by "the common good".

QED.

[quote]
The private. Oxygen is the ultimate private good.

To prove the negative you have to list every possible common good and
prove that in every particular case there is at least one person who
does not benefit. And no fair counting people who are doing things
counter-productive to the common good concept.

For example, you can't say a crime free environment is a common bad for
a criminal.

[/quote]
We pay taxes to support the criminal justice system. The benefits are
just as private as any other good.

[quote]Let's see the proof.

Mark M.
[/quote]
See away.

--
Les Cargill

Fred Weiss...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:40 pm

Guest

On Oct 29, 8:30 pm, "Mark M." <m... at (no spam) ztech.com> wrote:
[quote]Fred Weiss wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

As you can see, Fred is hopelessly ensnared in justification of ownership
as opposed to rational expectations or common good.

Fred proudly advocates private property and consider it essential for
the common good.

Which is more important, the private good or the common good?
[/quote]
The private good. Because without it there will be no common good. As
soon as the individual is sacrificed for the common good, there will
no longer be any common good. There will only be "the good" of the
sacrificers, of those collecting the sacrifices.

The recognition - and protection - of individual rights was an
enormous achievement of mankind. After the 20th Cent. we should have
learned where its rejection will lead.

Fred Weiss

Fred Weiss...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:43 pm

Guest

Michael Coburn...

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:00 am

Guest

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:43:31 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

[quote]On Oct 30, 2:54Â am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

Of course not. Â Don't be ridiculous. Â But a lot in the burbs is valued
based, not on the labor of a land owner, but on the labor of those ...

Labor is not the basis for value. We've been over this before.
[/quote]
That is beside the point. The value of a lot in the burbs has nothing to
do with anything the owner of the lot might have done in his capacity of
"owner" of the lot. If there have been "improvements" in the surrounding
area then labor was most certainly performed to produce the improvements.
And it is these "improvements" produced by others that add value to the
lot.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

Rod Speed...

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:19 pm

Guest

Fred Weiss wrote
[quote]Mark M. <m... at (no spam) ztech.com> wrote
Fred Weiss wrote
Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

As you can see, Fred is hopelessly ensnared in justification of
ownership as opposed to rational expectations or common good.

Fred proudly advocates private property and consider it essential for the common good.

Which is more important, the private good or the common good?
[/quote]
Mindlessly superficial question, both are obviously important.

[quote]The private good. Because without it there will be no common good.
[/quote]
That is just plain wrong.

[quote]As soon as the individual is sacrificed for the common good,
[/quote]
Doesnt have to sacrificed for the common good.

[quote]there will no longer be any common good.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.

[quote]There will only be "the good" of the sacrificers, of those collecting the sacrifices.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always. Most obviously what happens in wartime.

[quote]The recognition - and protection - of individual rights was an enormous achievement of mankind.
[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]After the 20th Cent. we should have learned where its rejection will lead.
[/quote]
Yeah, winning world wars etc.

Rod Speed...

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:22 pm

Guest

Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Fred Weiss wrote
Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. But a lot in the burbs is valued
based, not on the labor of a land owner, but on the labor of those

Labor is not the basis for value. We've been over this before.

That is beside the point. The value of a lot in the burbs has
nothing to do with anything the owner of the lot might have
done in his capacity of "owner" of the lot. If there have been
"improvements" in the surrounding area then labor was most
certainly performed to produce the improvements. And it is
these "improvements" produced by others that add value to the lot.
[/quote]
Wrong, most obviously with the difference in good bottom land and desert land.

Or land with oil under it and land with nothing useful under it.

darwinist...

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:45 pm

Guest

On Oct 28, 12:24 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Libertarian Property Rights: A Critical Assessment

Libertarians often compare taxation to support welfare safety nets
with armed robbery, slavery, and forced-labor camps. Since taxation is
backed up by the coercive power of government, it is viewed as morally
equivalent in kind to the coercive power of the thief, the
slaveholder, and the dictator. Such a view rests upon the assumption
that people have strong rights over the property that they own, rights
that are somehow essentially connected with the right to liberty, so
that taxation and slavery are essentially the same. Do we have such
rights? What is the connection between property rights over things and
the individual's right to liberty? How do we come to have property
rights over things?

The Problem Of Original Acquisition

Suppose we were to trace the ownership history of some piece of
property, either in land or in some other kind of good. The object
will have a history of transfers from one owner to another. These
transfers may involve sale, trade, gift, or bequeathment, for example.
The history of an object may also involve some process of manufacture,
where the manufacturer purchases raw materials and combines them to
form a finished product, which is then sold to a customer. All of
these transfers involve a change in ownership rights from one person
to another. But how did anyone ever first come to own anything? If we
trace the ownership of any object backward in time, eventually we must
reach a point where land, or ore, or trees, or some other natural
product that was not owned by any human being comes to be owned by
someone. Strong property rights of the kind envisaged by the
libertarian give the owner of the thing complete control over the
thing, control that includes the right to prevent others from using
the thing without permission of the owner. How can this be? How can
some individual come to have exclusive rights over a part of the world
that previously was not owned by anyone at all? The idea that
individual human beings can somehow acquire ownership rights over
parts of the earth has struck many people as strange. Many of the
native American peoples believed that the land belonged to the people
as a whole for their use. A similar view, that the earth belonged in
usufruct to the living, was held by Thomas Jefferson as well.

This problem of original acquisition is important for the libertarian
in at least two ways. First, according to Nozick's libertarian theory
of justice, the justice of any distribution of goods is a function of
the history of that distribution rather than of the pattern exhibited
by that distribution. If the distribution was reached by just
transfers from justly acquired initial holdings, then and only then is
the distribution just. This account needs some theory of justice in
original acquisition. Second, libertarian complaints that taxation to
support welfare safety nets is slavery requires property rights of a
very strong kind, rights that are not in any way encumbered by social
obligations. But since transfer can only transfer rights previously
acquired, the libertarian is going to need some account of original
acquisition that yields strong property rights of the kind presupposed
by the criticism of taxation for social welfare programs. Can the
libertarian deliver?...

...Suppose you and I are hunter-gatherers living in proximity to one
another. Suppose there is a section of woods that is particularly rich
in wild fruit, berries, nuts, and small game. Now suppose I claim this
woods as my own property and forbid you to forage for food there. But
surely in doing so I damage or impede your use of the woods. After
all, before I claimed it as my personal property, you were free to use
it as you liked. Now, wouldn't this be true of all original
acquisitions? Strong private property rights of the kind claimed by
libertarians certainly do include the right of the owner to exclude
others from use of the thing. So don't all original acquisitions
damage or impede the use of the thing acquired by others?

Narveson [objects] that my claiming the woods as my own must not
damage or impede your use of "such objects." To be sure, my claim
impedes your use of this woods, but so long as there are plenty of
other woods readily available to you, you retain access to "such
objects." Here Narveson clearly has in mind a proviso that Locke
attached to his own account of original acquisition: I am entitled to
make a part of nature my own only if there be "enough and as good left
in common for others." The idea, then, is that I can make some part of
nature my own private property so long as equally good portions of
nature remain available for other people to use in common or claim as
their own. If I were to claim the only source of water in the area as
my own, I would be violating the proviso, while if I claim an acre of
land, leaving plenty more available, I would not.

There is a certain reasonableness to the Lockean proviso. Clearly, if
I claim the only source of water as my own, I seriously damage your
interests in a way that I do not when I claim the single acre as my
own, leaving you with ample land for your own use. But can the
libertarian go along with Locke, as Narveson appears to do? Prior to
any act of original acquisition you were at liberty to cross this
piece of land. Now I claim this piece of land as my own. You are no
longer at liberty to cross this piece of land. By my own unilateral
action I have canceled your right to cross this piece of land. That
there is as much and as good left over should not be relevant for the
libertarian, for whom the right to liberty is inviolable.

There is also a regress problem that seems to render the Lockean
proviso unsatisfiable. Nozick provides a clear formulation of the
problem:

Consider the first person Z for whom there is not enough and as good
left to appropriate. The last person Y to appropriate left Z without
his previous liberty to act on an object, and so worsened Z's
situation. So Y's appropriation is not allowed under Locke's proviso.
Therefore the next to last person X to appropriate left Y in a worse
position, for X's act ended permissible appropriation. Therefore X's
appropriation wasn't permissible. But then the appropriator two from
last, W, ended permissible appropriation and so, since it worsened X's
position, W's appropriation wasn't permissible. And so on back to the
first person A to appropriate a permanent property right.15

If satisfaction of the Lockean proviso is necessary for just
acquisition, and if, as the regress argument seems to show, it cannot
have been satisfied in the real world, where enough and as good is
clearly not available for future appropriation, then it seems to
follow that no actual property rights can be acceptable.

Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelsonhttp://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
[/quote]
Libertarian theory has no end of problems which would quickly appear
if anyone was foolish enough to try to apply it to real life: Origin
of ownership, funding of government, regulating pollution, provision
of road and communication infrastructure, commercial monopolies, de-
facto slavery from lack of worker's rights, food and drug safety
standards, the proliferation of explosives, regulation of broadcast
frequencies. I could go on.

darwinist...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:05 am

Guest

On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]darwinist wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:24 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Libertarian Property Rights: A Critical Assessment

Libertarians often compare taxation to support welfare safety nets
with armed robbery, slavery, and forced-labor camps. Since taxation is
backed up by the coercive power of government, it is viewed as morally
equivalent in kind to the coercive power of the thief, the
slaveholder, and the dictator. Such a view rests upon the assumption
that people have strong rights over the property that they own, rights
that are somehow essentially connected with the right to liberty, so
that taxation and slavery are essentially the same. Do we have such
rights? What is the connection between property rights over things and
the individual's right to liberty? How do we come to have property
rights over things?

The Problem Of Original Acquisition

Suppose we were to trace the ownership history of some piece of
property, either in land or in some other kind of good. The object
will have a history of transfers from one owner to another. These
transfers may involve sale, trade, gift, or bequeathment, for example.
The history of an object may also involve some process of manufacture,
where the manufacturer purchases raw materials and combines them to
form a finished product, which is then sold to a customer. All of
these transfers involve a change in ownership rights from one person
to another. But how did anyone ever first come to own anything? If we
trace the ownership of any object backward in time, eventually we must
reach a point where land, or ore, or trees, or some other natural
product that was not owned by any human being comes to be owned by
someone. Strong property rights of the kind envisaged by the
libertarian give the owner of the thing complete control over the
thing, control that includes the right to prevent others from using
the thing without permission of the owner. How can this be? How can
some individual come to have exclusive rights over a part of the world
that previously was not owned by anyone at all? The idea that
individual human beings can somehow acquire ownership rights over
parts of the earth has struck many people as strange. Many of the
native American peoples believed that the land belonged to the people
as a whole for their use. A similar view, that the earth belonged in
usufruct to the living, was held by Thomas Jefferson as well.

This problem of original acquisition is important for the libertarian
in at least two ways. First, according to Nozick's libertarian theory
of justice, the justice of any distribution of goods is a function of
the history of that distribution rather than of the pattern exhibited
by that distribution. If the distribution was reached by just
transfers from justly acquired initial holdings, then and only then is
the distribution just. This account needs some theory of justice in
original acquisition. Second, libertarian complaints that taxation to
support welfare safety nets is slavery requires property rights of a
very strong kind, rights that are not in any way encumbered by social
obligations. But since transfer can only transfer rights previously
acquired, the libertarian is going to need some account of original
acquisition that yields strong property rights of the kind presupposed
by the criticism of taxation for social welfare programs. Can the
libertarian deliver?...

...Suppose you and I are hunter-gatherers living in proximity to one
another. Suppose there is a section of woods that is particularly rich
in wild fruit, berries, nuts, and small game. Now suppose I claim this
woods as my own property and forbid you to forage for food there. But
surely in doing so I damage or impede your use of the woods. After
all, before I claimed it as my personal property, you were free to use
it as you liked. Now, wouldn't this be true of all original
acquisitions? Strong private property rights of the kind claimed by
libertarians certainly do include the right of the owner to exclude
others from use of the thing. So don't all original acquisitions
damage or impede the use of the thing acquired by others?

Narveson [objects] that my claiming the woods as my own must not
damage or impede your use of "such objects." To be sure, my claim
impedes your use of this woods, but so long as there are plenty of
other woods readily available to you, you retain access to "such
objects." Here Narveson clearly has in mind a proviso that Locke
attached to his own account of original acquisition: I am entitled to
make a part of nature my own only if there be "enough and as good left
in common for others." The idea, then, is that I can make some part of
nature my own private property so long as equally good portions of
nature remain available for other people to use in common or claim as
their own. If I were to claim the only source of water in the area as
my own, I would be violating the proviso, while if I claim an acre of
land, leaving plenty more available, I would not.

There is a certain reasonableness to the Lockean proviso. Clearly, if
I claim the only source of water as my own, I seriously damage your
interests in a way that I do not when I claim the single acre as my
own, leaving you with ample land for your own use. But can the
libertarian go along with Locke, as Narveson appears to do? Prior to
any act of original acquisition you were at liberty to cross this
piece of land. Now I claim this piece of land as my own. You are no
longer at liberty to cross this piece of land. By my own unilateral
action I have canceled your right to cross this piece of land. That
there is as much and as good left over should not be relevant for the
libertarian, for whom the right to liberty is inviolable.

There is also a regress problem that seems to render the Lockean
proviso unsatisfiable. Nozick provides a clear formulation of the
problem:

Consider the first person Z for whom there is not enough and as good
left to appropriate. The last person Y to appropriate left Z without
his previous liberty to act on an object, and so worsened Z's
situation. So Y's appropriation is not allowed under Locke's proviso.
Therefore the next to last person X to appropriate left Y in a worse
position, for X's act ended permissible appropriation. Therefore X's
appropriation wasn't permissible. But then the appropriator two from
last, W, ended permissible appropriation and so, since it worsened X's
position, W's appropriation wasn't permissible. And so on back to the
first person A to appropriate a permanent property right.15

If satisfaction of the Lockean proviso is necessary for just
acquisition, and if, as the regress argument seems to show, it cannot
have been satisfied in the real world, where enough and as good is
clearly not available for future appropriation, then it seems to
follow that no actual property rights can be acceptable.

Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelsonhttp://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...

Libertarian theory has no end of problems which would quickly appear
if anyone was foolish enough to try to apply it to real life: Origin
of ownership, funding of government, regulating pollution, provision
of road and communication infrastructure, commercial monopolies, de-
facto slavery from lack of worker's rights, food and drug safety
standards, the proliferation of explosives, regulation of broadcast
frequencies. I could go on.

You could (and although some of your problems are a bit silly),
[/quote]
Which ones are they?

[quote]but
there would be no point. You could make the same sort of list of
"problems" for pure democracy, pure socialism, pure anarchism, pure
fascism, pure communism. Whenever any of these systems are tried in
heterogenous groups larger than commune-size, they devolve rather quickly..
[/quote]
Yes, they are problems under any political view, but for
libertarianism they are problems that the government is forbidden to
address and which the market is fundamentally unable to solve.

[quote]All these theories are, to their holders, utopian ideals; or, if you
will "In a perfect world, wouldn't it be great if....?"

In practice, libertarians are simply the polar opposites of statists.
[/quote]
Yes. It's like solving the problem of obesity by banning all food
except eggs and bananas.

[quote]They exist to point out the folly of anyone ever thinking that it is
possible to have a political class that will work in the best interests
of a populace, rather than themselves; and also to point out that there
is such a thing as economic freedom; if 100% taxation is perfect
slavery, the obviously the higher taxation rates move to that number the
less personal liberty one has.
[/quote]
On the one hand, that is false: There's a lot more to personal liberty
than just the rate of taxation. On the other hand it's irrelevant,
since you can't have 100% personal liberty and a society at the same
time

[quote]Hell, you're not running around thinking that big goverment is always
good for you, are you?
[/quote]
Of course not.

> JG

(David P.)...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:16 am

Guest

"Clave" <Clavius at (no spam) cablespeed.com> wrote:
[quote]"darwinist" <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Libertarian theory has problems which would quickly appear
if anyone was foolish enough to try to apply it to real life: Origin
of ownership, funding of gummint, regulating pollution, provision
of road/communication infrastructure, commercial monopolies,
de-facto slavery from lack of worker's rights, food/drug safety
standards, the proliferation of explosives, regulation of broadcast
frequencies. I could go on.

Libertarianism makes you stupid.

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
[/quote]
Seth Finkelstein - anagram
****************
See the skinflint.
****************
..
..
--

Michael Gordge...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:17 am

Guest

On Oct 28, 10:24 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Libertarian Property Rights: A Critical Assessment

Libertarians often compare taxation to support welfare safety nets
with armed robbery, slavery, and forced-labor camps.
[/quote]
Tax is legalized theft, end of story.

[quote]Such a view rests upon the assumption
that people have strong rights over the property that they own,
[/quote]
You breath your air, you digest your food, your actions can not begin
without your mind, you therefore are the owner of the results of those
actions, end of story.

MG

darwinist...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:14 am

Guest

On Nov 1, 9:40 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]darwinist wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
darwinist wrote:
[...]
Libertarian theory has no end of problems which would quickly appear
if anyone was foolish enough to try to apply it to real life: Origin
of ownership, funding of government, regulating pollution, provision
of road and communication infrastructure, commercial monopolies, de-
facto slavery from lack of worker's rights, food and drug safety
standards, the proliferation of explosives, regulation of broadcast
frequencies. I could go on.
You could (and although some of your problems are a bit silly),

Which ones are they?

Libertarianism assumes that a society can be built in which people
become personally responsible; a bit pie in the sky, we'd agree, but
that's the ideal. Much of your list assumes a more Calvinistic "utter
depravity" condition where man is completely selfish, and where their
selfish urges must be controlled by a high degree of coersion.

[/quote]
Which parts of the list are you talking about, specifically?

[quote]
but
there would be no point. You could make the same sort of list of
"problems" for pure democracy, pure socialism, pure anarchism, pure
fascism, pure communism. Whenever any of these systems are tried in
heterogenous groups larger than commune-size, they devolve rather quickly.

Yes, they are problems under any political view, but for
libertarianism they are problems that the government is forbidden to
address and which the market is fundamentally unable to solve.

I don't know which genre of libertarian theory you're looking at, but
I'd have to disagree that there's any notion of "forbidden to solve"
inherent in libertarianism. Milton Friedman, of course more of an
economic libertarian than an ideologic one, acknowledged the fact that
free market controls were ineffective at getting corporations to clean
up after themselves, and thus environmental regulation was a proper use
of government.

[/quote]
Not forbidden to solve, but forbidden to even address. You're right it
depends on which flavour of libertarian thought we're talking about.
I'm talking about the idea that (roughly stated) government's only
role should be to prevent direct attacks to our life, liberty or
property. That it should not be allowed to regulate business or levy
taxes (or at least not beyond what's needed for this role).

[quote]All these theories are, to their holders, utopian ideals; or, if you
will "In a perfect world, wouldn't it be great if....?"

In practice, libertarians are simply the polar opposites of statists.

Yes. It's like solving the problem of obesity by banning all food
except eggs and bananas.

Quite so.

They exist to point out the folly of anyone ever thinking that it is
possible to have a political class that will work in the best interests
of a populace, rather than themselves; and also to point out that there
is such a thing as economic freedom; if 100% taxation is perfect
slavery, the obviously the higher taxation rates move to that number the
less personal liberty one has.

On the one hand, that is false: There's a lot more to personal liberty
than just the rate of taxation. On the other hand it's irrelevant,
since you can't have 100% personal liberty and a society at the same
time.

I don't agree that it's false. In any economy that uses money, having
none renders you unable to enjoy the fruits of liberty. But, regardless,
the statement is more of a thought exercise than anything else.
[/quote]
What I mean is you can have a society with 5% taxation that's less
free than a society with 20%. There's more to freedom than tax. In any
case if you can suggest a way to fund the government other than
taxation, I'm sure we're all listening. There is a way to substitute
at least some of the funding, but libertarians tend to be dead against
it: A set of state-owned for-profit companies that compete in the open
market. IOW: State capitalism.

[quote]
Hell, you're not running around thinking that big goverment is always
good for you, are you?

Of course not.

*Whew*.

JG

JG[/quote]

Page 3 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:31 pm Science Forum Index