What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

[phaethon]

So I was wondering…why do libertarians believe that property rights are the be all and end all?

Being dogmatic about it naturally leads to silly ideas like legal slavery.

How about the following hypothetical:

X represents land I own and O represents land I don’t own (where each X/O represents 10 acres):

XXX
XOX
XXX

Now suppose my friend owns O and my friend runs a small hospital where children are pumped out. Now because I own all the surrounding land I have absolute power over the children. Unless they agree to my terms they cannot pass through X and gain access to the outside world. If my terms are that they must work on my land for the next 50 years to pass through then I have legally obtained a slave.

Taking private property rights as the one true right is inane. No wonder libertarians get little respect.

[Sloth]

[quote]phaethon wrote:
So I was wondering…why do libertarians believe that property rights are the be all and end all?

Being dogmatic about it naturally leads to silly ideas like legal slavery.

How about the following hypothetical:

X represents land I own and O represents land I don’t own (where each X/O represents 10 acres):

XXX
XOX
XXX

Now suppose my friend owns O and my friend runs a small hospital where children are pumped out. Now because I own all the surrounding land I have absolute power over the children. Unless they agree to my terms they cannot pass through X and gain access to the outside world. If my terms are that they must work on my land for the next 50 years to pass through then I have legally obtained a slave.

Taking private property rights as the one true right is inane. No wonder libertarians get little respect.[/quote]

I posed a similar question to an anarcho-capitalist on this forum, once. My scenario was of an old woman holding onto her property as a wealthy man purchased everything surrounding her. The wealthy man, wanting her property, wouldn’t grant her permission to travel unless she was willing to GIVE over her land. Then, and only then, could she travel through while on her way out. I think the response was something along the lines of “Well, she should build a helicopter.”

[Sloth]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(For the biblical scholars here…Push, Chris, Sloth, Trib…an explanation by way of a thread hijack.)

The thread falls over the course of the Independence Day weekend. Every July 4th, I am reminded of the inscription on the Liberty Bell, “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.” (Lev 25:10). You will notice that it does not say “unto all the landowners thereof.”

But my paeon to Justice ended not there, but with “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.” (Deut 16:20)
(A word on words: the words for “justice” and “righteousness” are identical, and the word is “pursue,” as a hunter would pursue an elusive deer, and not “follow” or “have.”)

Rashi and Sforno interpret the phrase very literally in its context; i.e., that one needs to find impartial judges.
Not so. Deut 16:20 reads, “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue, so that you will live and possess the Land that the Lord, your God, gives to you.”

So justice is elusive; nevertheless, there are no “property rights” without it.
[/quote]

I’m a scholar now!

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property

Jan 4th, 2008 by stewart

No, that’s not a typo. Many of us are probably familiar with the famous phase Thomas Jefferson wrote in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776): ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ This historic document proclaims these to be inalienable rights of every human being on the planet. I agree.

What is not as well known is that John Locke, a 17th century English Philosopher, insisted that men 'have a mind to unite for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates, which I call by the general Name, ‘Property.’

Also, Adam Smith, an 18th century Scottish philosopher and economist whom some have called the father of free trade with his treatise The Wealth of Nations, penned the phrase ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property.’

Jefferson, according to historians, was a great follower of Adam Smith, and since he was well educated it’s very likely his inspiration for the phrase ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ was derived from Locke and Smith."

http://www.stewarthsu.com/2008/01/04/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-property/[/quote]

So we should thank John Adams, who wisely changed Jefferson’s precis on Locke, to the more felicitous “pursuit of happiness.”

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…So justice is elusive; nevertheless, there are no “property rights” without it.
[/quote]

So then the discussion should be, “Where do these two sets of railroad tracks intersect?”[/quote]

Ah! The scales fall from his eyes…

[pittbulll]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hey Lift, how many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?[/quote]

It takes the whole free market , Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha [/quote]

Heh. Pretty much what I was going to say. “None. The free market will take care of it.” Lift did say his maid would do it, too.[/quote]

I personally would say 1 , me . I doubt many more would have domestic help in a libertairian society than in a Demacratic one

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That was the point.

Moral distinctions are not your forte, you prefer the sledge hammer approach.
[/quote]

No, you speak English like shit sometimes.

Lets try this:

If government discrminates because of race: bad.

If I do not want to serve black customers I may be an ignorant asshole, but I am being an ignorant asshole on my own time and money. This is none of your business.

Yes, this is racism.

So what?

It is first and foremost a property rights issue and property rights are the core of libertarianism.

Yes, and it’s fucking stupid. You’d allow a racist society to be created, enforced, and purveyed under the guise of “libertarianism.” Shouldn’t expect less from an Austrian I guess, but still…
[/quote]

Yes, it is stupid. But more than stupid, it shows the poverty of this type of “libertarianism.”

To claim that “it is first and foremost a property rights issue,” is also to claim that there are no other important first principles. [/quote]

There aren’t. Everything in the realm of life is property.[/quote]

Another “axiom,” I suppose? I did not expect more.

Perhaps for you, Lifty, those things which you can feel or see are the only reality, and it is all property.
What about that which you cannot see or feel?[/quote]

If you are referring to knowledge,[/quote]
I am not…[quote]
…knowledge is free. No one can own an idea.[/quote]

Oh? Tell that to the patent departments at Amgen or Genentech. See how far that argument gets you.
[/quote]

Okay, well it should be. Think about the salt water engine that Ford bought a few decades ago that would revolutionize the car market.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That was the point.

Moral distinctions are not your forte, you prefer the sledge hammer approach.
[/quote]

No, you speak English like shit sometimes.

Lets try this:

If government discrminates because of race: bad.

If I do not want to serve black customers I may be an ignorant asshole, but I am being an ignorant asshole on my own time and money. This is none of your business.

Yes, this is racism.

So what?

It is first and foremost a property rights issue and property rights are the core of libertarianism.

Yes, and it’s fucking stupid. You’d allow a racist society to be created, enforced, and purveyed under the guise of “libertarianism.” Shouldn’t expect less from an Austrian I guess, but still…
[/quote]

Yes, it is stupid. But more than stupid, it shows the poverty of this type of “libertarianism.”

To claim that “it is first and foremost a property rights issue,” is also to claim that there are no other important first principles. Once orion has set his “axioms,” you see, none dare challenge them, and among them is the primacy of property rights.

Of course, this argument that justifies the practice of racism ignores at least three pieces of history.
'Property rights" was the justification used by slave holders, and it was no more a valid excuse in the 19th century than now.
[/quote]

Just because it is used as justification does not mean it is in fact the correct idea or knowledge of the principle being used. Slavery has been proven that it is a lack of respect for Private Property and a complete aggression.

Second, the Jim Crow laws were enforced on the public by states’ laws, not by individual choice only.

Another example of States aggression on people’s private property.

Third, a racist confronted with his illegal bans does so because he runs a “public accommodation.” If he wants to be a racist in the privacy of his own hovel, now one will know or care. But if he runs a public accommodation, surely orion’s axioms indicate that all money is created green and equal, and to discriminate against the holder based on his race violates one of the basic tenets of “Austrian libertarianism.”

Private property is private property, there is no difference between an individual selling his car from his home, and an individual selling candy in his store. However, those that are racists tend to do poorly when there is no laws that are against those he is prejudice against in his business practices.

(Side Note: Racism is one of the most horrid things I have seen in my life).

(Surely orion or Lifty will protest that property rights do not include the right of “aggression” against others, but here is yet another tiresome example of defining away the irrationality of their version of “libertarianism.”)

Property rights do include aggression, against those that commit aggression against you or those who you responsible for.

So, FI, you are absolutely correct, this self-designated “philosophy” IS stupid, especially were it assigns primacy to supposed “property rights” in preference to…justice. [/quote]

If anything is unclear, let me know and I’ll explain further.[/quote]

Sorry, kiddo, you are agreeing with me on my 3 points involving the historic “sanctity” of property rights. What was once considered right is lately considered wrong.

It is where property rights conflict with “justice” or other equally valid rights–that is where the argument is joined, and where I contend that it is only one of competing interests that define liberty.

I will extend to you the same invitation that you extend me: if anything is unclear, just consider these two paragraphs in the context of the real world, and not the one you imagine to be real.

Then you are merely agreeing with Anarch-Capitalist principles, yet because of semantics you disagree.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< Of course, this argument that justifies the practice of racism >>>[/quote] You are in my view one of the sharpest people in this forum and a man whose education clearly exceeds my own by light years. It is therefore with respect and regret that I must say I believe you are committing a non sequitur with this statement. The mere permission of the practice of racism in a private concern does not equate to justification. Neither is passive rejection tantamount to active violence or enslavement. No person on this site has a more comprehensive or consistent history of the abhorrence of racism than myself. However, it is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin dictating at the point of a statute what clientele a privately held “accommodation” MUST entertain.[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< So, FI, you are absolutely correct, this self-designated “philosophy” IS stupid, especially were it assigns primacy to supposed “property rights” in preference to…justice. [/quote]In my opinion you have this backwards. When private property rights are made subservient to coerced acceptance of anyone by anyone else, of any race by any other, the resulting bare appearance of justice is far outweighed by the actual denial of individual sovereignty which places both sides in peril of further future restriction.
[/quote]

You are too kind.

Some of what you say is normative–things as they should be, perhaps. I will stick to the descriptive–things as they are.

You will note that I forethought your objection: the racist is free to be a racist in his own hovel. If the “public accommodation” is held privately, it is nevertheless practicing a public function. Would it be just for a state to force it to practice racism? Of course not.

While you protest that the owner can practice his racism publicly, the “settled law” holds otherwise. In this particular instance, there is no “right”–not property rights, not shouting “fire” in a theater, etc.–which transcend the exercise of justice. You choose the word “sovereignty,” and I will remind you that in the US, it is the law which is sovereign.[/quote]
Oh I’m well aware of what settled law holds. Creative legal precedent over constitutional intent is a significant component in everything that’s gone wrong with this nation. Justice in this country, despite uneven early application, was intended to be limited to equal access to the redress of objectively quantifiable grievances, not social engineering. Making reprehensible, but non criminal injustice criminal, accomplishes the opposite of what it intends as is everywhere evinced by the state of race relations still prevalent here.

Let me ask you this before going any further. In your view can there be no case in which a privately held public accommodation is legally permitted to intentionally exclude anybody because of who or what they are? You will immediately recognize this as a loaded question so there’s no point in hiding it. It will also probably lead you into a more precise definition of “public”. It is still an honest question loaded thought it is.[/quote]

Fair enough.
Can I think of a public accommodation by which I may exercise my private biases?
Yes. I do not have to treat every patient that comes my way. For example, I do not have to attend a dirtbag covered in Nazi swastika tattoos.
But ethics, and sometimes the law to which I am subject, determine otherwise. I must find alternative care for the asshole; in an emergency, I must provide care and pass on the obligation only when the patient is stable.

Now you may see my point. “Property rights,” as defined by the matereialist–the property here being my practice of medicine–do not have absolute primacy. They are claimed by me, but only in recognition of the public compromises.

That is descriptive. Now you tell me: is that how it should be?
If you are a material libertarian, the answer is no; I should not be forced by any compromise, however voluntary, to treat assholes.

Now Tribulus, I know you are no asshole, but were you of another minority, should you not claim rights that are to be respected along with, or in contention to, “property rights?” Or do you have no rights whatsoever, except those subject to another’s property rights?

[/quote]

I think you are talking about what is, and these other guys are talking about what is right (at least to them) or ideal. Let’s get in the right mind set.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…The “market libertarians” would constrain the argument–any argument–to their rules. I do not accept them.
Markets correct what markets correct, and there are no perfect markets. [/quote]

The settled law = justice-ians would constrain the argument–any argument–to their rules. I do not necessarily accept them.

Justice corrects what justice corrects, and there is no perfect justice, only the justice established by those in power at any particular time.[/quote]

You surely catch my restriction: I am being descriptive, not normative.
So my use of settled law in this context–note the quotation marks in the original–is appropriate to my purpose.

Now then, my further purpose is to question whether property rights are the only–or just one–consideration in the question of personal liberty. IF they are the ONLY guide to human relations–as Lifty or orion contend–than society must accept all sorts of injustices that ensue.

Whether justice is immutable and perfect is not my argument; we both know it is not. I argue only that the concept of Justice, and not property alone, must be among those which guide truly free people.

Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue.[/quote]

What is more towards justice than letting what one have gathered through one’s own work?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]phaethon wrote:
So I was wondering…why do libertarians believe that property rights are the be all and end all?

Being dogmatic about it naturally leads to silly ideas like legal slavery.

How about the following hypothetical:

X represents land I own and O represents land I don’t own (where each X/O represents 10 acres):

XXX
XOX
XXX

Now suppose my friend owns O and my friend runs a small hospital where children are pumped out. Now because I own all the surrounding land I have absolute power over the children. Unless they agree to my terms they cannot pass through X and gain access to the outside world. If my terms are that they must work on my land for the next 50 years to pass through then I have legally obtained a slave.

Taking private property rights as the one true right is inane. No wonder libertarians get little respect.[/quote]

Fallacy, Private Property is a principle, not the only one. You are only taking some of the principles into the equation and not the whole philosophy.

Read here: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict | Mises Institute

[phaethon]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Fallacy, Private Property is a principle, not the only one. You are only taking some of the principles into the equation and not the whole philosophy.

Read here: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict | Mises Institute
[/quote]

Hardly a fallacy. I simply said being dogmatic about it leads to silly conclusions.

The link you posted said believing that freedom and property were synonymous is silly. Which was exactly my point.

There are libertarians on this board, aka lifty and orion, who would die before admitting property rights should be restricted to maximize freedom. Yet that is exactly what the mises article suggests.

By the way thank you for the high quality link.

[phaethon]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I posed a similar question to an anarcho-capitalist on this forum, once. My scenario was of an old woman holding onto her property as a wealthy man purchased everything surrounding her. The wealthy man, wanting her property, wouldn’t grant her permission to travel unless she was willing to GIVE over her land. Then, and only then, could she travel through while on her way out. I think the response was something along the lines of “Well, she should build a helicopter.”[/quote]

I bet I can guess the anarcho-capitalist in question

From what I can see the non-dogmatic libertarians are essentially conservatives.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Fallacy, Private Property is a principle, not the only one. You are only taking some of the principles into the equation and not the whole philosophy.

Read here: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict | Mises Institute
[/quote]

Hardly a fallacy. I simply said being dogmatic about it leads to silly conclusions.

The link you posted said believing that freedom and property were synonymous is silly. Which was exactly my point.

There are libertarians on this board, aka lifty and orion, who would die before admitting property rights should be restricted to maximize freedom. Yet that is exactly what the mises article suggests.

By the way thank you for the high quality link.[/quote]

It is not just property rights should be restricted to maximize freedom, but that private property should not be used to deny one freedom to their private property.