Libertarianism

[Seth]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Libertarians, including Seth, do it all the time.

and it's wrong, serfs labour all the time to raise crops and animmals and whatnot that are the Lord's property.

That's because they are slaves. The concepts and rules that apply to free men do not apply to slaves. Libertarianism does not permit slavery, so your argument is non sequitur.

Property is indeed a person's "reward" for labor. It's the most fundamental reward of any living organism, the right to exclusive use of resources acquired for survival.

[Beatsong]

My ability to claim and defend a right does not come from the permission of anyone. It originates in my physical ability to perform the acts necessary to claim and defend the right.

Exactly. So if a group of people acting as a "government" have the physical ability to perform the acts necessary to claim your property for their own, and then defend it, then they have the same "right" to it as you had in the first place.

[Beatsong]

Property is indeed a person's "reward" for labor. It's the most fundamental reward of any living organism, the right to exclusive use of resources acquired for survival.

There you go, Coito - straight from the horse's mouth.

Property is reward for labour - particularly when you've had to work really hard to be born into it.

[pErvinalia]

And what reward did Seth's parents get for bringing up the mini-tyrant? All they got was a box in the ground after it all.

[Seth]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Loads of people, not least, as I said, Seth on many occasions. It's one of the most common arguments for capitalist economics, private property and limiting taxation - that when people are allowed to keep and enjoy the fruits of their labour, they are more likely to work hard and that benefits everybody. And that people DESERVE to keep the fruits of their labour and not have them taken from them by people who didn't work for them.

It's an argument I happen to agree with. It's just peculiar that one the occasions when property turns out to represent the exact opposite - "reward" for the dumb luck of being born to the right parents no matter how indolent you are, the response of the same people seems to be to mutter vaguely and try and pretend it isn't happening. Personally I'd rather be open minded about how to create a society in which property functions as a genuine reward for labour.

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud, the title to the property lies with whomever has reduced it to possession and that person may pass on that property to anyone he or she chooses. The heir has just as much claim on the property as the original owner because the original owner has transferred title to that person. The original owner's death does not erase the title to that which he has earned...except in Communist societies where nobody owns anything and everything is the property of the State on loan.

Your plaint sounds like pure greed and jealousy over someone else's good fortune. Why should we acknowledge that as a rational basis upon which to make public policy?

You need to remember that it ISN'T "his" unless the other people inhabiting his country agree that it is. Don't believe me? Try being a Russian landowner during the Bolshvik revolution, an Australian aborigine or a native American subject to European colonialism. If the people wielding power where you live decide that your property rights don't exist, then they don't, and that's nothing to do with what "ought" to be, it's simply what is.

So we try to maintain a society in which people believe in property rights and respect those of others. But we can only do that by convincing people of why they're important and what their value is. And part of that is being honest about their limitations.

I don't get the point you're making here. The thief doesn't "agree" that my car is my property. When he is stealing it, he's trying to take it from me for free. This "agreement" you speak of is a fiction. What really happens is that the idea of a person owning property, and what property rights entail, is defined by law. This is not contingent on one's neighbors agreeing that those concepts are correct. They're bound regardless of their own agreement.

Nonsense. Law, while by no means a perfect representation of society's will in its minute day-to-day application, relies ENTIRELY on people agreeing that it is "right" in order to EXIST as law in a general sense. When a critical mass of people DON'T any longer believe it is right, it gets changed. That's precisely how all societies have changed throughout history.

That does not change the nature of the fundamental Organic right to property. A million people may desire to take what I have built or earned but that does not make their theft moral or ethical even if they make a "law" giving them permission to do so. What's mine is mine, and I may not morally be divested of that property without my consent.

You seem to suggest that law just exists in some strange bubble of its own where it was invented one day and is not subject to what anybody thinks about anything. That's absurd. In fact your example proves my point: society as a whole recognises the concept of property and that theft of property is wrong, and punishes thieves accordingly. The guy who steals your car goes to jail if he gets caught precisely because he is operating contrary to the laws that are in operation. By contrast, there are areas of the world where you can steal whatever you like and have the physical power to steal, because there is no effective law in operation to the contrary.

Interestingly, in places like that the people who labor to reduce the property to their exclusive possession and use will, if they can, resist such theft with force, and they have a RIGHT to do so that, with sufficient physical strength, overcomes the attempt to take the property from them. That is the basic equation of the right to property: "Can I reduce it to exclusive use and possession and then defend that exclusive possession against those who would take it from me?"

I'm not arguing the morality of it here

Then you're arguing nonsense because this is inherently a moral issue.

On the contrary, I'd reiterate what I said to Seth: if you want to argue that property law is just some entirely arbitrary thing that exists as en entitly unto itself, with nothing to do with morality or what most of society believes, then that's absolutely fine. But the corollary of that is that all it takes for someone to deny your property right over your house or car and decide it's theirs, is for a certain number of people with a certain number of power to decide that's the case. Then it is.

"Might makes right" is not necessarily axiomatically moral.

That's just the law of the jungle. If someone wants to argue for that they can. What's ridiculous is when they then try to pretend there's some moral basis to it, when the entire idea is based on exactly the opposite. Most arguments for libertarianism are fundamentally hypocritical and self-contradictory in this respect. They just switch back and forth between moral and amoral attitudes as it happens to suit them.

Wrong. We adhere to the principle that the individual has a right to the exclusive use and possession of property that he creates or reduced to possession without initiating either force or fraud upon others. That right to property is not subject to the collective decision of others, ever. Libertarianism does not recognize any greater right or moral authority for a collection of individuals to impose their will on another against that person's will or take his property from him by virtue of nothing more than their numbers or superior ability. That's what Socialism does. It says that whatever one claims as one's own is never one's own, but rather is the property of the collective on loan from the collective, which may repossess that property at will and without compensation.

Libertarianism holds that one's title and right to one's property is absolute and that the individual shall not divested of that title or property by anyone without his consent.

There's nothing at all hypocritical or self-contradictory about it. You just don't understand Libertarianism, you want to present a strawman vision of what you think Libertarianism is so you can attack your own strawman conveniently.

[pErvinalia]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Loads of people, not least, as I said, Seth on many occasions. It's one of the most common arguments for capitalist economics, private property and limiting taxation - that when people are allowed to keep and enjoy the fruits of their labour, they are more likely to work hard and that benefits everybody. And that people DESERVE to keep the fruits of their labour and not have them taken from them by people who didn't work for them.

It's an argument I happen to agree with. It's just peculiar that one the occasions when property turns out to represent the exact opposite - "reward" for the dumb luck of being born to the right parents no matter how indolent you are, the response of the same people seems to be to mutter vaguely and try and pretend it isn't happening. Personally I'd rather be open minded about how to create a society in which property functions as a genuine reward for labour.

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud,

Of course it came orginally from force or fraud. It was stolen from the indigenous peoples.

[Seth]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property? Sounds a bit sour-grapey to me.

But Seth argues that his ownership is rooted in his ability to defend it by force. I pointed out that his ownership derives from inheritance rooted in and defended by property law. Sounds a bit like you haven't been paying proper attention to me.

No, ownership by inheritance is rooted in and defended by the right of the original owner to dispose of his property as he sees fit after his death because his labor in creating or acquiring that property does not lose its power merely because he has died, the property remains and it remains his to dispose of to his heirs by direction prior to his death.

At the core, the title to property, any sort of property (not just real estate, but any object, thing or resource), is ultimately secured by the ability of the individual to reduce it to possession and defend the individuals exclusive possession and use of the property (resource).

As I said, law is just a "social convention" that arbitrates and mediates dispute over the exclusive possession and use of property in ways other than through Law of the Jungle brute force. But the right inures to he who is able to take possession of the property and defend that possession against intrusion by others, whether through law (which is nothing more than civilized warfare) or through force.

However that works out, the right to property is NOT granted by any government or collective, it's asserted and defended by the individual as a natural and inherent part of that individual's existence as a living creature.

[Seth]

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud,

Of course it came orginally from force or fraud. It was stolen from the indigenous peoples.

Prove it. My property (real estate) was purchased from the indigenous peoples. Other property, all over the world, was acquired by the right of conquest after fighting a war over title to and possession of the real estate, which goes right back to the fundamental principle of the right to property; one's ability to defend it against intrusions by others.

[Beatsong]

It's one of the most common arguments for capitalist economics, private property and limiting taxation - that when people are allowed to keep and enjoy the fruits of their labour, they are more likely to work hard and that benefits everybody. And that people DESERVE to keep the fruits of their labour and not have them taken from them by people who didn't work for them.

It's an argument I happen to agree with. It's just peculiar that one the occasions when property turns out to represent the exact opposite - "reward" for the dumb luck of being born to the right parents no matter how indolent you are, the response of the same people seems to be to mutter vaguely and try and pretend it isn't happening. Personally I'd rather be open minded about how to create a society in which property functions as a genuine reward for labour.

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud, the title to the property lies with whomever has reduced it to possession and that person may pass on that property to anyone he or she chooses. The heir has just as much claim on the property as the original owner because the original owner has transferred title to that person.

Oh right, so the heir has just as much claim to their property as someone who laboured for it then. You therefore DON'T believe that property is "reward for labour" - since the amount of labour that was invested by the owner in obtaining the property (anything from zero upwards) is completely irrelevant to the validity of the owner's claim.

Sorry, for a moment there I thought you might have been saying something coherent rather than just making up self-contradictory bollox.

Law, while by no means a perfect representation of society's will in its minute day-to-day application, relies ENTIRELY on people agreeing that it is "right" in order to EXIST as law in a general sense. When a critical mass of people DON'T any longer believe it is right, it gets changed. That's precisely how all societies have changed throughout history.

That does not change the nature of the fundamental Organic right to property. A million people may desire to take what I have built or earned but that does not make their theft moral or ethical even if they make a "law" giving them permission to do so. What's mine is mine, and I may not morally be divested of that property without my consent.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9&start=62



Credit where credit's due: you got balls of brass bringing out that embarassingly puerile quasi-philosophical fantasy world of yours again after the beatings it's taken.

Thanks for keeping the comedy alive. As it happens I have an organic right to entertainment on the internet. I just decided I do so it must be true.

I'm not arguing the morality of it here

Then you're arguing nonsense because this is inherently a moral issue.

Yes, of course it is. Except when it isn't.

That's just the law of the jungle. If someone wants to argue for that they can. What's ridiculous is when they then try to pretend there's some moral basis to it, when the entire idea is based on exactly the opposite. Most arguments for libertarianism are fundamentally hypocritical and self-contradictory in this respect. They just switch back and forth between moral and amoral attitudes as it happens to suit them.

Wrong. We adhere to the principle that the individual has a right to the exclusive use and possession of property that he creates or reduced to possession without initiating either force or fraud upon others.

But reducing something to individual possession initiates force upon others by definition - the force that they cannot use it themselves.

But hang on, how could that be? Then you wouldn't be making sense! It's almost like this isn't a developed, adult philosophy or something.

[Beatsong]

Other property, all over the world, was acquired by the right of conquest after fighting a war over title to and possession of the real estate, which goes right back to the fundamental principle of the right to property; one's ability to defend it against intrusions by others.

As opposed to being stolen.

[pErvinalia]

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud,

Of course it came orginally from force or fraud. It was stolen from the indigenous peoples.

Prove it. My property (real estate) was purchased from the indigenous peoples. Other property, all over the world, was acquired by the right of conquest after fighting a war over title to and possession of the real estate, which goes right back to the fundamental principle of the right to property; one's ability to defend it against intrusions by others.

No, you didn't say it was one's "ability" to defend it. You said that regardless of one's ability to defend it, the owner has a moral right to that property.

[pErvinalia]

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud,

Of course it came orginally from force or fraud. It was stolen from the indigenous peoples.

Prove it. My property (real estate) was purchased from the indigenous peoples.

A lot of land was purchased through fraud and trickery, and a lot of land was outright stolen. So what if it was a "war of conquest" (whatever the fuck that is)? The government could take your land and we could call it a "war of conquest". You'd accede, of course?

[Seth]

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud,

Of course it came orginally from force or fraud. It was stolen from the indigenous peoples.

Prove it. My property (real estate) was purchased from the indigenous peoples.

A lot of land was purchased through fraud and trickery, and a lot of land was outright stolen.

True enough, but you have to prove exactly which land you're talking about, and anyway we're not just discussing real estate, we're discussing the broader definition of "property" meaning any thing of value one owns.

So what if it was a "war of conquest" (whatever the fuck that is)? The government could take your land and we could call it a "war of conquest". You'd accede, of course?

They could try. Whether they obtain title through right of conquest depends on who is the victor in the fray. Which is why I'll keep my guns, thank you very much.

[Seth]

What business is it of yours if one's ancestors worked hard to acquire property and then pass it to the next generation to make their lives better and more successful? So long as the property is not first obtained through force or fraud,

Of course it came orginally from force or fraud. It was stolen from the indigenous peoples.

Prove it. My property (real estate) was purchased from the indigenous peoples. Other property, all over the world, was acquired by the right of conquest after fighting a war over title to and possession of the real estate, which goes right back to the fundamental principle of the right to property; one's ability to defend it against intrusions by others.

No, you didn't say it was one's "ability" to defend it. You said that regardless of one's ability to defend it, the owner has a moral right to that property.

No I didn't.

[pErvinalia]

Yes you did:

That does not change the nature of the fundamental Organic right to property. A million people may desire to take what I have built or earned but that does not make their theft moral or ethical even if they make a "law" giving them permission to do so. What's mine is mine, and I may not morally be divested of that property without my consent.