| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Libertarian property rights & problem of original... |
|
Page 1 of 10 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Immortalist... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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 Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 9:24 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]The Problem Of Original Acquisition
[/quote]
There is no problem.
What happened centuries ago hardly matters any more. The original
victims, whomever they may be, are obviously no longer around. Nor can
their descendants make any claims since their own distance from the
original events are too long ago and tenuous at best (even apart from
the total lack of a moral issue any longer).
We can take it as a given that much original property was acquired by
force, most of it perhaps even immorally by today's standards. So
what?
The distance of time has given all owners ample opportunity to either
earn - or lose - their titles. (That is, of course, assuming a free
market in the trade of property, rather than title by birth, e.g.
aristocracy).
What is important is that (1) now rights and title be clear and (2)
that events in the distance past gives no one alive today any moral or
legal claims.
There are in fact some real issues relevant here, e.g. the return of
property from Nazi and/or Communist confiscation. That is recent
enough so that even original owners - or perhaps their immediate
descendants - might have legitimate claims. But even that can be
complicated. So trying to go back even further into the distant past
is obviously absurd on its face.
Fred Weiss |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 28 Oct, 15:23, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]There are in fact some real issues relevant here, e.g. the return of
property from Nazi and/or Communist confiscation. That is recent
enough so that even original owners - or perhaps their immediate
descendants - might have legitimate claims. But even that can be
complicated. So trying to go back even further into the distant past
is obviously absurd on its face.
[/quote]
Maybe you could be more explicit about where the line is drawn.
Indegeneous people have had entire countries taken from them
well within recorded history. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:36 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Libertarian Property Rights: A Critical Assessment
[/quote]
Interesting. Kind of shoots the legs out from under the libertarians
claim of inalienable private property rights, don't it? Thanks for
posting.
[quote]
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 Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beam Me Up Scotty... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hal wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:36 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Libertarian Property Rights: A Critical Assessment
Interesting. Kind of shoots the legs out from under the libertarians
claim of inalienable private property rights, don't it? Thanks for
posting.
[/quote]
I need some furniture, I'll be over later to pick up what ever I want,
later. You don't own it, that means it belongs to the people and I want it.
[quote]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 Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
[/quote]
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:36 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
[quote]How do we come to have property rights over things?
Suppose we were to trace the ownership history...
[/quote]
Ok, suppose we do.
Property rights are historically based upon force.
Who has the most force can claim a right to the most property but this
became unworkable after a while. It was too dependent upon local
destruction, local wars, local petty division and a basic human repulsion
towards these when done locally.
Enter contract law of the kingdom. Enter a government that then made,
interpreted and enforced these contracts. Enter common tax to pay for all
this.
The thug king and his gang of nobles (ie prized fighters) became
protectors and tax rich, not needing to work the land they controlled
only protect the people who actually did the work. Add church and
suddenly all this power becomes Divine by a will and right of a chosen
god. Remove the god, extortion.
A counter 'force', of sorts, was also evolving over this entire time. It
was a force of thought, a philosophy which culminated and had a peak in
the middle 1700 to early 1800's.
One result of this was a very new and quite liberal notion that a person
was free to own for the simple reason that they were a human and not
because they were 'noble' and ordained by a church or only had the brute
force to do so.
It was this idea which evolved over thousands of years in hundreds of
forms by millions of people which 'gave' today's Libertarians their
rights. The fact that much land was also 'free' at the time did not hurt
matters at all. Now that this is no longer the case and has not been for
a couple hundred years now, neither is 'free to own'.
Speaking of FREE ownership, if you are in debt, you do not own and do not
have ownership liberty. You can keep others from using it, be charged tax
for it, like a serf, but it is not yours. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 12:20 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 28 Oct, 15:23, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
There are in fact some real issues relevant here, e.g. the return of
property from Nazi and/or Communist confiscation. That is recent
enough so that even original owners - or perhaps their immediate
descendants - might have legitimate claims. But even that can be
complicated. So trying to go back even further into the distant past
is obviously absurd on its face.
Maybe you could be more explicit about where the line is drawn.
Indegeneous people have had entire countries taken from them
well within recorded history.
[/quote]
My understanding is that there are people living today
who have been deprived of their countries as well as their
personal property. In fact, I doubt if there has been a year
in the last several thousand when that sort of thing didn't
happen somewhere. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 2:17 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]In article
d430bc45-5694-44f7-9a63-63544d441... at (no spam) l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[...]
What is important is that (1) now rights and title be clear and (2)
that events in the distance past gives no one alive today any moral or
legal claims.
Would your opinion change if I could show you that some people alive
today are physically disadvantaged because their land was taken by force
two hundred years ago?
[/quote]
Someone alive today was alive 200 years ago and is thus
disadvantaged? YES, please show us that one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 2:17 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]In article
Would your opinion change if I could show you that some people alive
today are physically disadvantaged because their land was taken by force
two hundred years ago?
[/quote]
They would also have to be mentally "disadvantaged" to not have
overcome by now whatever setbacks their ancestors experienced.
Let's not forget that 10's of millions of immigrants came to this
country, often with not much more then the clothes on their backs, and
still managed to prosper.
Japanese-Americans had property taken from them during WW11 but within
a generation they became either the highest or one of the highest
earning groups in the country.
All the rest is excuses.
Fred Weiss |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 3:45 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2:17 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
Would your opinion change if I could show you that some people alive
today are physically disadvantaged because their land was taken by force
two hundred years ago?
They would also have to be mentally "disadvantaged" to not have
overcome by now whatever setbacks their ancestors experienced.
Let's not forget that 10's of millions of immigrants came to this
country, often with not much more then the clothes on their backs, and
still managed to prosper.
Japanese-Americans had property taken from them during WW11 but within
a generation they became either the highest or one of the highest
earning groups in the country.
[/quote]
Yes, and Asian-Americans are among the staunchest GOP supporters.
Maybe there is a correlation between not listening to leftarded
democrats telling you "you can't make it" and making it?
[quote]All the rest is excuses.
Fred Weiss[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<d430bc45-5694-44f7-9a63-63544d441750 at (no spam) l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fredweiss at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote][...]
What is important is that (1) now rights and title be clear and (2)
that events in the distance past gives no one alive today any moral or
legal claims.
[/quote]
Would your opinion change if I could show you that some people alive
today are physically disadvantaged because their land was taken by force
two hundred years ago? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
<srduffy1126 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 3:45=A0pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:17=A0pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
Would your opinion change if I could show you that some people alive
today are physically disadvantaged because their land was taken by forc=
e
two hundred years ago?
They would also have to be mentally "disadvantaged" to not have
overcome by now whatever setbacks their ancestors experienced.
Let's not forget that 10's of millions of immigrants came to this
country, often with not much more then the clothes on their backs, and
still managed to prosper.
Japanese-Americans had property taken from them during WW11 but within
a generation they became either the highest or one of the highest
earning groups in the country.
Yes, and Asian-Americans are among the staunchest GOP supporters.
[/quote]
liar
[quote]Maybe there is a correlation between not listening to leftarded
democrats telling you "you can't make it" and making it?
The Democrats made gains among the Asian American population starting[/quote]
with 1996 and in 2006, won 62% of the Asian American vote. This is due
to demographic shifts in the Asian American community, with growing
numbers of well-educated Chinese American and Indian American
immigrants that are typically economic centrists and social
progressives, and newer generations of more liberal Vietnamese
American and Filipino American youth have also began to replace older
more conservative generations that have voted reliably Republican.
Vietnamese Americans still vote mostly Republican (though this has
lessened recently), while Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans,
Indian Americans, Southeast Asian Americans other than Vietnamese, and
Pacific Islander Americans have voted mostly Democratic. Filipino
Americans, Korean Americans, and Pakistani Americans have recently
begun to lean Democratic. Younger Asian-Americans of all ethnic
backgrounds aged 18–30 have gravitated towards the Democratic Party in
the last few elections.
[quote]
All the rest is excuses.
Fred Weiss
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:24 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
[quote]hal wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:36 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Libertarian Property Rights: A Critical Assessment
Interesting. Kind of shoots the legs out from under the libertarians
claim of inalienable private property rights, don't it? Thanks for
posting.
I need some furniture, I'll be over later to pick up what ever I want,
later. You don't own it, that means it belongs to the people and I want
it.
[/quote]
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
If the PRODUCER of the owned _stuff_ has paid for the raw materials
needed to produce the stuff (the furniture in this case) then the
furniture is "rightful" private property as it is now separate and
distinct from nature and the result of a person's labor. As it turns
out, the raw materials may well be naturally reproduced and not even
diminished by the taking. It is _PRODUCTION_ that makes _stuff_ a
candidate for rightful ownership. All naturally occurring _stuff_ has no
labor component, is the commons, and is rightfully accessible and usable
by all until there is a scarcity problem (the Lockean proviso). The
scarcity problem results in what is called "rent" and it is a natural
result of population in a FIXED natural world.
http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/LaborTheoryOfCost.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Land_rent
[quote]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 Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/
dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
[/quote]
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:23:36 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 9:24Â pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
The Problem Of Original Acquisition
There is no problem.
What happened centuries ago hardly matters any more. The original
victims, whomever they may be, are obviously no longer around. Nor can
their descendants make any claims since their own distance from the
original events are too long ago and tenuous at best (even apart from
the total lack of a moral issue any longer).
[/quote]
This is the "conservative view". I own it now and fuck you. It matters
not that you never entered into any contract or agreement that would have
set aside your rights to naturally occurring land. My great grand daddy
screwed yours out of the land rights and tough shit for you. And as you
can see we are absolutely NOT all created equal with regard to liberty
and pursuit of happiness. I did not earn what I own, but that is
irrelevant because I own it and you don't. Tough Shitsky.
[quote]We can take it as a given that much original property was acquired by
force, most of it perhaps even immorally by today's standards. So what?
[/quote]
You think you own that stolen car cause your daddy gave it to you or
because you paid good money for it?
[quote]The distance of time has given all owners ample opportunity to either
earn - or lose - their titles. (That is, of course, assuming a free
market in the trade of property, rather than title by birth, e.g.
aristocracy).
[/quote]
However, that is what inheritance is and it should not matter anyway.
Natural resources should no be privately owned. They are not even
"owned" in common. But that sort of relationship is all the conservative
rightarded can understand and so it is the only means of communication
with a propertarian.
[quote]What is important is that (1) now rights and title be clear and (2) that
events in the distance past gives no one alive today any moral or legal
claims.
[/quote]
That is a religious position without righteous merit or even an economic
justification.
[quote]There are in fact some real issues relevant here, e.g. the return of
property from Nazi and/or Communist confiscation. That is recent enough
so that even original owners - or perhaps their immediate descendants -
might have legitimate claims. But even that can be complicated. So
trying to go back even further into the distant past is obviously absurd
on its face.
Fred Weiss
[/quote]
As you can see, Fred is hopelessly ensnared in justification of ownership
as opposed to rational expectations or common good.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:31:49 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2:17Â pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
d430bc45-5694-44f7-9a63-63544d441... at (no spam) l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
 Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[...]
What is important is that (1) now rights and title be clear and (2)
that events in the distance past gives no one alive today any moral
or legal claims.
Would your opinion change if I could show you that some people alive
today are physically disadvantaged because their land was taken by
force two hundred years ago?
Someone alive today was alive 200 years ago and is thus disadvantaged?
YES, please show us that one.
[/quote]
That is a two edged sword. The rights to an object that existed 200
years ago cannot have been earned by anyone living today.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:48 pm
|
|