The Founding Principles of Libertarianism Taken to Reductio

[Marv]

Ad Absurdum Prove That the Philosphy is Logically Incoherant...IMO.

Libertarianism can be reduced to three fundamental governing principles;

1. The right to private property is absolute.
2. The right to voluntary contract between two or more individuals is absoloute.
3. A minimilist state should be in place to enforce those two absoloute rights and nothing more.

By showing that there cannot be any morally justifiable ownership of land or unproduced natural resources...and...that any contract between parties A and B that affects party C is not therefore legitimate causes the whole super-structure to collapse.

Libertarianism is no more a wholesome or moral philosophy than any other. It is at best a practical, yet limited way to view the world, and at worst an attempt at justifying the unjustifiable...namely, our own selfishness.

All IMHO, ofcourse.

[The Laughing Man]

try finding things in our lives that AREN'T directly oriented on or inspired by selfishness.....telling the difference is the first hardest part.....self importance rules our thoughts and our lives, it's no surprise we would package them as "ideals" to me, heh....

[sgt.null]

so prove that private property is wrong.

[The Laughing Man]

its not wrong, it's just selfish?

[sgt.null]

marvin said this...
"By showing that there cannot be any morally justifiable ownership of land or unproduced natural resources"

that seems more than just selfish acts he is talking about.

[Plissken]

In America, this is a non-issue, as there are no more absolutes in the Libertarian party. I have yet to talk to a self-professed Libertarian who actually wants a small government - only a government that enforces the laws that they like (usually some of the most intrusive - and usually intruding further into the bedroom than any self-respecting OS 'Pub is willing to go), and doesn't enforce the ones they find inconvenient.

Considering that I was taking a long look at joining in the Libetairian philosophy back when the Dems were in power and trying to regulate everything in my livingroom, I find this trend to be both disturbing and disappointing.

[Esmer]

marvin said this...
"By showing that there cannot be any morally justifiable ownership of land or unproduced natural resources"

that seems more than just selfish acts he is talking about.

if you equate selfishness with moralism its perfectly sensible. but considering a world where land and resources belong to everyone the desire to aquire ownership and control production of those resources in order to profit somehow is selfish and immoral. not living together and sharing everthing we have on this planet is a selfish and immoral way to live.....you can't compare our current way of life with a perfectly moral and unselfish one either, really....

[Avatar]

What gives you the right to own exclusively any piece of land Sgt?

--A

[Cail]

We've been down this road before. Our society has created land ownership as a basic tennant. If we're going to play this game, then what gives any government the authority to tell people what to do? We accept that authority to tell us how fast to drive, not to kill, and to tell us that the piece of paper in the filing cabinet means we own the land we live on.

[Avatar]

You're making that argument to the wrong person Cail.

Seriously though, I realise that it's too late to be asking this now, given the society that we've got, but hell, we're talking about Reductio Ad Absurdum, so I think it's OK.

The answer to my question, obviously, is nothing. What...the government gives us the right to own it? Who gave the government that right? Etc. Etc.

(I know you know how that pans out, if we go far enough back. Some guy drew a line on the ground and said "everything inside that line is mine. If you cross it, I'll kill you." And that's where land ownership comes from. The barrel of a gun. Or the point of a spear as the case may be. )

--A

[Cail]

Absolutely. But the point is, we've accepted the construct of government, and if we accept that, why is there any question about property? And to take it to the completely absurd length, if there's no property ownership then there's no governments because there's no national boundaries.

I tend to agree with Pliss about Libertarians....It's a nebulous group, and most of them just want to be left alone to smoke their weed.

[Avatar]

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you accept the construct of government.

--A

[Cail]

Which I know you say you don't, yet you probably carry some form of government ID, and I'm willing to bet you pay taxes too. So even though you don't like the government, you're still actively accepting it.

Edit-IOW, unless you're living in a cave and not accepting anything from the government, you're as much a part of the machine as anyone else.

[sgt.null]

Avatar: land ownership has long been proven to be the best way to conserve land. when people do not have a stake in something they tend to abuse it. look at any welfare apartments or low rent apartments. they are trashed, high crime, etc. look at Africa where villages owning a piece of the animals has led to conservation. this hippy ideal of free rantge for everyone works both ways. a company can go in and strip mine the Florida wetlands if we do not have divisions of land ownership.

[Plissken]

No argument here - conservation is best applied by those with a stake in keeping the resource profitable. Which is why opening Federal lands to mining, logging, and drilling makes absolutely no sense.

[Avatar]

Which I know you say you don't, yet you probably carry some form of government ID, and I'm willing to bet you pay taxes too. So even though you don't like the government, you're still actively accepting it.

Edit-IOW, unless you're living in a cave and not accepting anything from the government, you're as much a part of the machine as anyone else.

Well, I'm not accepting anything from the government, they're forcing me to pay for what little I manage to get from them. (Get from them in a theoretical sense that is, not directly.)

I don't have to like the fact that I have no option but to exist within their structure either. But I'm a pragmatist. I live with it.

That said, I certainly agree with the Sgt about conservation, although it has more to do with economic considerations than the "pride" of ownership, I think. (In other words, as Plissken suggests, what pays stays.)

But it's still all based on a lie that we're willing to accept. That government has the right to allow us to be owners, (and they do allow it...plenty of instances where they've changed their minds, especially out here.)

--A

[Zarathustra]

Let's go back to the beginning: this thread doesn't represent a "reductio ad absurdum" argument at all. Tazz, you apparently don't know what the phrase means. You simply disagreed with the premises (which you constructed yourself). The only "absurd reduction" going on here is your own reduction of a political ideology to a mere three sentences. Sure, that makes it a lot easier to construct an argument against a political philosophy, but you didn't even do this very well. Here, I'll show you:

If you actually think there is no justification for personal property, then by all means PM me and I'll give you my address to where you can mail me all your stuff.

If C thinks an agreement between A and B is negatively affecting him, then there are legal courses of action which can be taken. There is no collapse of the "superstructure" just because someone decides to sue.


Libertarianism is can only be described as "justifying selfishness" in the sense of supporting individual freedoms. You have something against personal rights, Tazz? Don't you think there is anything at all to which you are entitled by virtue of being an individual? Or are all our rights bestowed upon us because we are members of groups? Isn't defining people in terms of groups--rather than individuals--where racism, sexism, and bigotry have their roots? Shouldn't people have equal rights despite which demographic group they belong to? If so, then their rights are INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. If not, then you're talking about discriminating against whole groups of people.

If wanting to be free is selfish, then I'm a selfish bastard indeed.

[Marv]

Let's go back to the beginning: this thread doesn't represent a "reductio ad absurdum" argument at all. Tazz, you apparently don't know what the phrase means. You simply disagreed with the premises (which you constructed yourself). The only "absurd reduction" going on here is your own reduction of a political ideology to a mere three sentences. Sure, that makes it a lot easier to construct an argument against a political philosophy, but you didn't even do this very well.

I didn't present a reductio ad absurdum argument. i merely stated that it could be shown to be illogical if you did...and then I showed the avenues one could explore to do it. If you really want to get to reductio ad absurdum maybe we could discuss the ridiculous Libertarian definitions of 'force' or 'fraud'.

If C thinks an agreement between A and B is negatively affecting him, then there are legal courses of action which can be taken. There is no collapse of the "superstructure" just because someone decides to sue.

Libertarianism is can only be described as "justifying selfishness" in the sense of supporting individual freedoms. You have something against personal rights, Tazz? Don't you think there is anything at all to which you are entitled by virtue of being an individual? Or are all our rights bestowed upon us because we are members of groups? Isn't defining people in terms of groups--rather than individuals--where racism, sexism, and bigotry have their roots? Shouldn't people have equal rights despite which demographic group they belong to? If so, then their rights are INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. If not, then you're talking about descriminating against whole groups of people.

Where do these rights come from? God? Nature? Some innate human attribute? Be prepared to back up whatever source you cite.

Libertarianism, as a moral philosophy is based on absoloute rights. The rights of property, the rights to voluntary contract. However, it can quite easily be shown that these rights are not absoloute. The ownership of land is not absolute and the landowner is not sovereign. Titles to land often contain easements and deed restrictions and are contingent upon your keeping your property taxes current. Additionally, they usually do not grant you airspace rights or mineral rights.

How is a voluntary contract defined? Must it be explicitly recorded?

If I walk into a restaurant and eat a meal, there is no explicit contract between me and the restaurant for them to deliver the food and me to eat it that is signed by both parties. Am I still obligated to pay?

You cannot make a contract with a minor. You cannot make a contract with the mentally deficient. You cannot make a contract stipulating that you agree to slavery. You cannot make a contract stipulating you wish to die (this may soon change of course). You cannot make a contract stipulating that rights no longer apply to you. The list is endless.

[The Laughing Man]

so......what Malik? Are you saying that Marvin hates your freedom?

[Marv]

The libertarian model of ethics and reality has everyone in their own personal spheres of self and property and that we are free to do whatever we want so long as we do not directly infringe on anyone else's sphere. Effectively, everyone is an island. Unfortunately, this is not an accurate picture of reality. Everything we do affects other people. You are forced to pick an arbitrary line dividing what constitutes an initiation of force and what external effects can be safely ignored.

Examples taken from The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman;

A ten megawatt laser is aimed at your house, incinerating it instantly. Is this an initiation of force? Everyone would probably say yes.

A ten kilowatt spotlight is aimed at your house making it impossible for you to keep your eyes open while in your house. Is this an initiation of force? Most people would say yes.

An ordinary flashlight is shone at your house. Is this an initiation of force? Most people would say no, but some will say that it depends. If I shine it directly into your bedroom at night and it prevents you from sleeping, maybe it is an initiation of force; at any other time, perhaps not.

I strike a match. A couple of photons, which you cannot even perceive travel onto your property. Is this an initiation of force? Virtually everyone would say no.

You have two choices, you can either say that ANY transgression of someone else's person or property constitutes an initiation of force, in which case we disallow everything or we draw a line and say that anything OVER this constitutes an initiation of force and should be disallowed. But where do we draw the line? Not only is any choice necessarily arbitrary, but the entire system of ethics we develop on top of this will DIFFER depending on where we draw the line.

Regarding property rights...My ipod is mine because someone created it through their labour and then voluntarily exchanged it for the fruits of my labour. This isn't the case with land. Land is in fixed supply and is the product of nobody's labor. By claiming property rights in land you are denying it's use to others. So, from where does this 'right' come?