The Founding Principles of Libertarianism Taken to Reductio

[Cail]

Firstly, the legitimacy of government has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

And this is why I choose not to continue this discussion. I'll repeat, condemning personal land ownership while validating national borders and legitimizing government control/oversight of land use is illogical and inconsistent.

[Marv]

My purpose is not to justify or validate. The libertarian position of absolute rights is patently nonsensical.

Georgism is more efficient and is derived from the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruit of their own labor and that wages represent a just payment for that labor. I believe in a small government that would re-distribute taxes to the people. They simply wouldn't own the land and would have no say in how it was allocated. Additionaly, the market would set the level of tax and not government.

The value of land derives from externalities, not the land itself: the actions of neighbors make land more valuable, and this value is unfairly sopped up by the landowner. We can accurately assess these externalities, and charge the land user this amount and pay this money to the externality causers and lease land just for its natural value.

Each parcel of land would be "owned" by the person who could make the best use of it. Furthermore, it would be next to impossible for a land speculator to deliberately withhold land from the market because they would have to pay the tax while they were sitting on it - this alone would cause a flood of land that was previously being held from the market to come available.

As for national borders; if governments don't own the land and we have freedom of movement (citizens between EU countries for example) where's the problem? If a country doesn't allow freedom of movement then I consider that to infringe on liberty.

It is more efficient to have smaller, more localized government.

That is all.

[Cail]

I believe in a small government that would re-distribute taxes to the people. They simply wouldn't own the land and would have no say in how it was allocated. Additionaly, the market would set the level of tax and not government

You realize, of course, that you have a better chance of sprouting wings than this actually coming to pass, don't you?

Labels really don't interest me (Georgist, Libertarian, etc), so I'm going to ignore that for the moment. The idea that somehow there are governments that would redistribute tax monies to the citizenry for property that no one owns (yet can somehow be called "Canadian" or "Bolivian") is not only inconsistent, but hopelessly naive.

To put your challenge back to you, you can't give one reason why people can't or shouldn't own land, other than some nebulous idea that somehow that denys usage to....someone...who then somehow isn't free. Not realistic at all.

[Zarathustra]

Marvin, I'm not "making this personal," as you accuse. I'm directing my points to you because it's your thread. The little bit about you sending me your stuff was a joke. I thought the smiley made that plain. I didn't realize you were talking about land, only.

Okay, so you want a philosophical discussion of rights, eh? Fine. But why attack Libertarianism solely? The idea of inalienable, absolute rights is a foundational belief of our country, articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Democrats and Republicans also believe in absolute rights. You yourself believe in absolute rights to the product of your own labor. If you really just wanted to talk about rights, your focus on Libertarians confuses your intent.

Okay, rights. I'll go ahead and admit it: "absolute rights" are bullshit. People talk about absolute rights only to motivate smaller minds with something akin to religious fervor--motivate them to support a particular ideology, fight in the local war, whatever. No one has an absolute right to anything. We're not born with rights. Rights are granted. Rights are merely acknowledgements we give to each other that we want to be treated equally. You respect my claim to my property, and I'll respect your claim to your property. Rights are truces. They are where we've come to a temporary stalemate in the endless Might Makes Right battle, and decided to disquise this battle in flowery language and bureoucracy, to use ideology and the government to protect what we've used force to acquire. So whether or not you think it is illogical is beside the point. It's not intended to convince people like you. For people like you, we have men with guns.

It's all might makes right. That's the way the world works. Libertarianism is simply one of the more palatable compromises, one of the more pleasant myths we use to disguise the ugly truth of the world. Your myth is no better. There is no logical argument that could be used to justify your own absolute claims of rights. The product of your own labor? So what? If I can take it from you by force, then your "right" is meaningless. In order to keep it, you have to protect it with force. So we're back to might makes right, and your protestations of "It's mine, I made it," are just empty sounds amid the battle cries. Logic won't stop bullits. So what is it about your labor makes the right absolute? And if rights are all protected/enforced with guns, then there is no practical difference between "absolute" rights and "arbitrary" rights in the first place. Only the amount of indignation changes.

But if you want to talk logic, your distinction between land and other physical bits of the earth is illogical. On what basis are you allowing ownership of some bits, but not others? In order to produce your Ipod, for instance, people had to take matter out of the earth--out of land--and assemble it. If little bits of land (its minerals, petroleum, ect.) can be privately, individually owned in order to make products, then your rights-talk is just as arbitrary as that which you criticize. The arbitrary limit within your own definition is one of scale, size. Land is not distinct from the matter comprising it. Take some of the matter away, and it's precisely that much less land.

You talk about mineral rights as logically separate from land rights--thus your arbitrary boundary lies within 2-dimensional surface area. Why arbitrarily stop with the surface? What logical principle allows you to carve out room for private ownership in the 3-dimensional space below the surface (in terms of mineral rights), but not in the 2-d surface area? None whatsoever.

All matter available to humans is finite--the finitude of surface area is not a sufficiently distinct reason to deny private ownership. Most of the matter we use in products comes from the ground. If it is okay to own some bits of the ground, then it is illogical to deny private ownership of other bits of the ground, i.e. "land." Your definitions, absolutes, and distinctions are all arbitrary, too.

[Marv]

Marvin, I'm not "making this personal," as you accuse. I'm directing my points to you because it's your thread. The little bit about you sending me your stuff was a joke. I thought the smiley made that plain.

I wasn't best pleased with something you wrote in another thread. If you want to respond with emotion to something I've written (within reason) then by all means. I don't expect you to take unilateral cheap shots for no good reason. (if you don't know what I'm talking about then PM me)

I didn't realize you were talking about land, only.

I said the right to private property is not absolute. If the private ownership of land can be shown to not follow from the right of self-ownership(from whence all rights come according to Libertarian philosphy) then the right to private property is patently not absolute. That was all in my first post. (I suspect your animosity towards me meant you failed to get very far past the title of the thread ).

Okay, so you want a philosophical discussion of rights, eh? Fine. But why attack Libertarianism solely? The idea of inalienable, absolute rights is a foundational belief of our country, articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Democrats and Republicans also believe in absolute rights. You yourself believe in absolute rights to the product of your own labor. If you really just wanted to talk about rights, your focus on Libertarians confuses your intent.

I chose libertarianism because there's much in the philosophy that I actually agree with. Many of the ideas behined it are sound. I simply believe that the 'natural' conclusions that have been drawn from some of it's founding principles are incoherant. I have abandoned rights based libertarianism because of that.

Okay, rights. I'll go ahead and admit it: "absolute rights" are bullshit. People talk about absolute rights only to motivate smaller minds with something akin to religious fervor--motivate them to support a particular ideology, fight in the local war, whatever. No one has an absolute right to anything. We're not born with rights. Rights are granted. Rights are merely acknowledgements we give to each other that we want to be treated equally.

Agreed.

You respect my claim to my property, and I'll respect your claim to your property. Rights are truces. They are where we've come to a temporary stalemate in the endless Might Makes Right battle, and decided to disquise this battle in flowery language and bureoucracy, to use ideology and the government to protect what we've used force to acquire. So whether or not you think it is illogical is beside the point. It's not intended to convince people like you. For people like you, we have men with guns.

The reason some devote lifetimes to the study of human interatcion through the social sciences and political philosophy is in an effort to enable us to live on this planet as peacefully and freely as possible. The fact that someone can force me to abandon certain privaleges that a free society provides through force does not make it acceptable. At least, that's how most people I know feel.

The point is to advance the ways in which we think, right?

It's all might makes right. That's the way the world works. Libertarianism is simply one of the more palatable compromises, one of the more pleasant myths we use to disguise the ugly truth of the world. Your myth is no better. There is no logical argument that could be used to justify your own absolute claims of rights. The product of your own labor? So what?

I do not believe that we have an absolute right to anything. I do, however think one can make a logical argument that if we are to be free we must be entitled to the product of our own labor. And that's the point. I believe property rights in land not only derive from nothing but actually infringe on my freedom.

Ok, the terms 'free' and 'liberty' and 'rights' are very ambiguous and for a real in depth discussion we would need to have very stricy definitions. However, if we stick to some rather loose definitions for the moment, would you agree that simply as a result of being we are entitled to self ownership and the liberty to continue our lives-IF WE ARE TO BE FREE? Just as the right to one's self implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere. Thus, can it not be said that without access to land, and therefore the ability to sustain my life through my own labor, I am no longer free? Indeed, that i am enslaved?

John Locke, one of the founding fathers of libertarianism, provided the proviso on which this debate and the absolute right to private property hangs on; "that one has property in land only to the extent that there is enough, and as good left in common for others."

Clearly this shows that the right to private property is not absolute.

But if you want to talk logic, your distinction between land and other physical bits of the earth is illogical. On what basis are you allowing ownership of some bits, but not others? In order to produce your Ipod, for instance, people had to take matter out of the earth--out of land--and assemble it. If little bits of land (its minerals, petroleum, ect.) can be privately, individually owned in order to make products, then your rights-talk is just as arbitrary as that which you criticize. The arbitrary limit within your own definition is one of scale, size. Land is not distinct from the matter comprising it. Take some of the matter away, and it's precisely that much less land.You talk about mineral rights as logically separate from land rights--thus your arbitrary boundary lies within 2-dimensional surface area. Why arbitrarily stop with the surface? What logical principle allows you to carve out room for private ownership in the 3-dimensional space below the surface (in terms of mineral rights), but not in the 2-d surface area? None whatsoever.

Land and unproduced natural resources are seen as one and the same by Geolibertarians. I dont recall making a distinction either.

I wouldn't suggest that unproduced natural resources are sacred and should remain unowned by all humanity. I would suggest that by denying others the uses of something which you yourself didn't create, a form of compensation should be paid.

A piece of wood has value. Value that was not created through the actions of any single individual. The value of that wood once extracted for private ownership should be levied through tax. Once the piece of wood has been turned into a product it has a greater value(usually), which has been added through labor. That extra value is what you are entitled to. It makes sense.

I realise this is not exactly a philosophical discussion on rights, but in explaining why I believe what I believe I need to digress occasionaly.

Thanks for replying

[Fist and Faith]

I wonder what the percentage is of non-human animal species whose males mark their territory in some way. And of those that do, are there any who do not fight other males who enter that territory? By what right do they claim ownership of that territory? What makes them think it's acceptable behavior to tell other males of their species that they can't be in the same general vicinity?

I do not believe we should always behave the way animals do. Obviously, we are very different in one or two ways; ways that are directly related to behavior. However, we are animals, with many similar characteristics. Maybe we don't have the right to own a part of the earth's surface, but doing so is a part of us. We don't need to think that it started when one person staked a claim and killed anyone who invaded. There's no need to consider it a matter of might-makes-right. I'm not saying that's not how it started, I'm just saying it's not definitely how it did. Maybe it's simply as much our nature as it is any bird's. If humans are a social animal, as we seem to be, it helps keep the peace. Tell everybody in the world that we can't own land, and see what happens.

Good fences make good neighbors.

[Zarathustra]

I wasn't best pleased with something you wrote in another thread.

Well, in that case, sounds like you are the one with the animosity, doesn't it? I honestly don't know what you're talking about, so go ahead and PM me. I'm usually pretty good at admitting when I'm wrong. (And extremely arrogant when I'm right )

I said the right to private property is not absolute. If the private ownership of land can be shown to not follow from the right of self-ownership(from whence all rights come according to Libertarian philosphy) then the right to private property is patently not absolute. That was all in my first post. (I suspect your animosity towards me meant you failed to get very far past the title of the thread ).

I think you are focusing too much on the history of Libertarianism. I don't think every Libertarian agrees with everything John Locke said. (In fact, I'm not even sure John Locke agreed with everything he said. I think he purposely used propaganda to motivate the lower and middle classes to his cause.) Since you and I agree that rights are defined pragmatically, contingently, and somewhat arbitrarily, I don't see the value of trying to define rights in terms of self-ownership and then seeing what follows. I think it would be better to just think about what rights we'd LIKE to have, and then haggle.

Trying to formulate rights in some axiomatic manner is doomed to fail, because humans are fundamentally paradoxical. Just try defining "self." I dare you. If we can't even come to an agreement on what a "self" is, then it's impossible to derive all rights from self-ownership. And if we could agree on "self," we'd have to stop there because it makes no sense to extend ANY rights beyond the self--anything beyond the self is by definition NOT the self. Therefore, if all rights derive from self-ownership, all you can logically own is yourself. Just because yourself interacted with the outer world in some way doesn't extend your self-hood to parts of the world. The labor of your own hands is no more your Self than the air you breathe; in both cases, breathing and laboring involves an intimate interaction with external matter--breathing is even more intimate because you're taking it into your body, so it could be argued that the air we breathe in/out is more intimately "tied" to our Self than the labor of our hands. Which is nonsensical, in terms of rights.

I chose libertarianism because there's much in the philosophy that I actually agree with. Many of the ideas behined it are sound. I simply believe that the 'natural' conclusions that have been drawn from some of it's founding principles are incoherant. I have abandoned rights based libertarianism because of that.

The political movement can be separated from its ideological origins. You can be a Libertarian, vote Libertarian, without subscribing to rights-based philosophy. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to participate in ANY election if your vote depends on acceptance all the ideology and propaganda of each party. In practical terms, I see Libertarianism as an anti-political movement. It's purpose is to empower citizens, not the government. To allow people to be as free as possible. You don't think land ownership allows you to be free--ok, fine. But which political party is campaining against land ownership? If this is your litmus test, how can you vote at all?

The fact that someone can force me to abandon certain privaleges that a free society provides through force does not make it acceptable. At least, that's how most people I know feel.

The point is to advance the ways in which we think, right?

I don't think it's acceptable, either. It's simply a statement of fact: all rights and laws are in the end backed up by a gun. Most of the time, our government tries to "keep us in line" with rhetoric, ideology, and fear. When that doesn't work, we get the gun.

My point was that "logic" within political movements isn't used the same way logic is used in math. It's not a proof; it's just another propaganda tool. The fact that you've uncovered a logical hole in the foundational beliefs of one political party only shows that you aren't easily led by propaganda. For that, you can pat yourself on the back because you figured it out. But it doesn't really change anything, because for smart people like you, governments have guns to keep you in line, and don't need logic. Thus, you looking for a more logical political system misses the point. You're just looking for better, more airtight propaganda. Why not instead take the insight you've gleaned and run with it? Realize that ANY logical foundation is a pointless quest, and get down to the business of figuring out the best way to get along? The "best way" won't be the most logical way. Because humans are paradoxical.

If you like Libertarianism as a pratical solution, don't let the logical conundrum hang you up.

I do not believe that we have an absolute right to anything. I do, however think one can make a logical argument that if we are to be free we must be entitled to the product of our own labor. And that's the point. I believe property rights in land not only derive from nothing but actually infringe on my freedom.

Ok, I'd agree with you: IF we are to be free. Now we're talking. Conditional defitions, I like it.

. . . would you agree that simply as a result of being we are entitled to self ownership and the liberty to continue our lives-IF WE ARE TO BE FREE? . . .

Well, we are entitled to nothing "as a result of being." However, you save yourself by saying, "if we are to be free," so yes, I agree we must have the right to self-ownership to be free.

. . . Just as the right to one's self implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, . . .

As I said above, I don't think self-ownership implies the ownership of ANYthing beyond the self (how could it?), but as long as you want to say, "if we are to be free," then I'm still with you. Yes, I too want the freedom to own the fruit of my labor.

However, the right to the fruit of my labor IN NO WAY implies that I have a right to labor. If x, then y. (x="I produce something," y="what I produce is mine"). Nowhere in that conditional proposition does it say that "x" is necessarily the case, or that "x" is a right. It says, "IF x." There is no logical necessity here; it's just another point we're going to have to haggle about. [I'm stressing this point because I don't believe you have the right to a job. If you can find one, good for you. If you can't find one, no government can protect this "right" by finding or creating one for you.]

. . . and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere. Thus, can it not be said that without access to land, and therefore the ability to sustain my life through my own labor, I am no longer free? Indeed, that i am enslaved?

This is the shakiest logic you've presented thus far. There is no logical reason why I can't labor on someone else's land. In fact, I'd say 99.9% of us already work on land we don't own, and none of our paychecks vanish in a poof of logic. You don't have to own land to sustain yourself. The definition of "fruit of my labor" isn't dependent upon where I'm standing.

This is the kind of trouble you get into when you insist upon formulating axiomatic priniciples for human behavior: you end up saying ridiculous things that can easily be disproven just by looking at the world.

Land and unproduced natural resources are seen as one and the same by Geolibertarians. I dont recall making a distinction either.

If there is no distinction between land and the resources within the land, then how can you sustain a logical argument for ownership of one, and against the ownership of the other? This was exactly my point: if it makes sense to own bits of the earth, then it makes sense to own pieces of land. Either you're contradicting yourself, or you DO make a distinction.

I would suggest that by denying others the uses of something which you yourself didn't create, a form of compensation should be paid.

Why? If someone finds gold in Africa, why should I be paid for their find? I'm neither poorer nor richer due to their find. I'm not hurt in any way. So why should I profit from something I didn't do? If the sole basis for this "compensation" comes from the logic of "not creating it yourself," then you violate that logic by compensating me, for I certainly had nothing to do with it. Sometimes people are just lucky. You can't legislate random luck out of human interaction.

A piece of wood has value. Value that was not created through the actions of any single individual. The value of that wood once extracted for private ownership should be levied through tax.

Okay, let's take this to the logical extreme. Let's say humans start colonizing the solar system. We find and claim lots of stuff out there which we didn't create. Are we going to continuously compensate every other human in existence for every extraction of value? Am I to be compensated for someone claiming an asteroid that I would otherwise never even know about? If I would never in my lifetime find a use for all the rocks in the solar system, then why do I have a right to compensation when someone else extracts value from one?

What if we stumble upon an alien race, are we going to compensate them, too? On second thought, why don't we compensate the animals here on earth? Don't they have equal rights of ownership of this planet? Where does this madness end? Should I be taxed for the sunshine that I soak up with my skin? I've just extracted value from our sun for which I didn't compensate my fellow man. What if I walk into a cool breeze? Should I be taxed because I'm enjoying something that others are not? I didn't create the sunlight or the air. Yet I extract value from them all the time. Just because there's "plenty to go around" is merely a contingent fact. There is nothing logically distinct between this and a situation of scarcity.

I think you've got some good ideas, but your latter realizations are being hindered by your clinging to previous assumptions. In other words, you're off to a good start by realizing that there are no absolute rigths; but you undermine this realization by falling back upon axiomatic thinking which led to the idea of absolute rights in the first place. Instead of trying to see if land ownership can be logically derived from what you're willing to accept (i.e. self-ownership), why not find other ways to accept or not accept land ownership? For instance, there are environmental issues. There are market issues. You can think of more.

[Marv]

You've provided me with some interesting new thoughts, Malik. I'll need to have a think before I reply.