Exactly! Great line. And property is scarcity. The person is scarce. To deal with human nature it would be best to have the starting point for any investigation as to what human nature is and all the actions that a human makes, it would be best to start with “human”, ie. property/scarcity axiom, action axiom. I know we could choose many different starting points but if I want to know about a human then having the starting point be the “human” sounds reasonable to me.
“You are conflating the “ethical-aesthetical” with the “moral-legal””
Shouldn’t they be conflated? Specifically, shouldn’t the latter be derived from the first to the extent the first is knowable, or at least agreed upon?
There are various versions of human rights. One version (see here) bases human rights on rational egoism - so in certain cases one can violate rights in order to preserve one own’s life. Other versions of human rights are more absolutist.
Rothbard dealed with this before. He said that you, as an individual, can choose to violate someone else’s rights in order to save your own life (or someone else’s life). That said, if you do violate someone’s rights, you also have to suffer the consequences if the victim of your crime decides to sue you.
- That it is wrong to use extreme scenarios to critique a moral/ethical philosophy. At best, you can critique its validity when applied to those scenarios.
Well, this really depends. But I’d argue that the all encompassing nature of the Rothbardian system commits one to accepting the implications of such lifeboat situations. Of course, one can simply bite the bullet and accept the conclusions of the lifeboat situation, but I think that other ethical systems that are less absolute and more humble can deal with them better.
It seems that by Rothbard’s framework, in his utopia there would be little ‘free speech.’ We only have a right to speak freely, according to Rothbard, if the property owner consents; but Rothbard wants all of the roads, all of the parks, all of the public squares to be privately owned.
That means there would be no place where a person can stand on a soapbox and address others (at least not unless he can afford the asking fee). Rothbard talks about how one could distribute pamphlets, but presumably one would have to pay for a booth somewhere or something like that. I know most shopping malls in the U.S. won’t allow the distribution of anything more controversial than girlscout cookies (might drive away business). Privately owned media often turn down even paid advertisements on account of them being “too controversial.” Supposedly everything would be run along that model. Maybe the internet makes this less relevant, but to me a privately owned omni-present system where those who lack property lack real rights seems a bit dystopian and fascistic.
'‘It seems that by Rothbard’s framework, in his utopia there would be little ‘free speech.’ We only have a right to speak freely, according to Rothbard, if the property owner consents’
There isn’t any freedom of speech in private property today anyways.
‘That means there would be no place where a person can stand on a soapbox and address others (at least not unless he can afford the asking fee).’
Or if he owns it.
Your moral system is inconsistent, libertarian is consistent.
There isn’t any freedom of speech in private property today anyways.
True, but today not all property is private. If the theatre owner won’t let you speak in his theatre, you can still theoretically speak on the street outside instead.
Or if he owns it
Well, exactly. Those who own nothing will effectively have no rights.
“You are conflating the “ethical-aesthetical” with the “moral-legal””
Shouldn’t they be conflated? Specifically, shouldn’t the latter be derived from the first to the extent the first is knowable, or at least agreed upon?
No. Exactly the opposite. The latter need separated from the former. You liking the color red isn’t a valid reason to make a law forcing people to wear red. The words “Ethics” and “morals” are often used interchangeably, but they have to be separated somehow, thus the more distinct difference is seen between “aesthetic” and “legal”.
There isn’t any freedom of speech in private property today anyways.
True, but today not all property is private. If the theatre owner won’t let you speak in his theatre, you can still theoretically speak on the street outside instead.
So many people will have preexisting easement rights to walk the street in front of a theater. The cost to the theater owner of expelling one person who has those rights when he “gets it wrong” will typically outweigh whatever benefits you conjure up in your pathological hypos. Businesses want customers. Barring any hurts their business in general. As property owners, they still have the right to associate freely.
Or if he owns it
Well, exactly. Those who own nothing will effectively have no rights.
What you are saying is true, but unless someone is a murderer they still legitimately own themselves and have the right to not be aggressed upon.
“pathological hypos”
Nothing hypothetical… try handing out a pamphlet in a shopping mall and see how many seconds it is until you’re expelled.
There have even been egregious cases where people were expelled simply for wearing a t-shirt with a political message:
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/114606_westlaked.shtml
The instance in Albany where a guy was thrown out of a mall because his shirt said “Peace on Earth” is especially tragi-comic. Airlines kick people off all the time for wearing shirts with ‘controversial messages.’
The whole private, for-profit media today is basically a joke, anything controversial to the concentrated corporate ownership is as censored as Pravda ever was. Most of the real news is in the blogosphere and run at a loss.
“So you’re telling me that you, personally, would freeze to death outside of the abandoned summer cabin, rather than enter and commit burglary? If you can’t claim that you would, then it’s hypocritical to claim it as a moral imperative for others.”
IF to survive you had to rape someone, would that make it okay? If you had to kill someone to survive, would that make it okay? I think that you need to see extreme examples to show that even petty crimes are still wrong even if you’re only doing them to survive.
“pathological hypos”
Nothing hypothetical… try handing out a pamphlet in a shopping mall and see how many seconds it is until you’re expelled.
There have even been egregious cases where people were expelled simply for wearing a t-shirt with a political message:
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/114606_westlaked.shtml
The instance in Albany where a guy was thrown out of a mall because his shirt said “Peace on Earth” is especially tragi-comic. Airlines kick people off all the time for wearing shirts with ‘controversial messages.’
The whole private, for-profit media today is basically a joke, anything controversial to the concentrated corporate ownership is as censored as Pravda ever was. Most of the real news is in the blogosphere and run at a loss.
Benjamin I’m referring to this other thing you said.
If the theatre owner won’t let you speak in his theatre, you can still theoretically speak on the street outside instead.
Your point was that since the state reserves “public property” it is so awful that this theater owner who “won’t let you speak in his theater” would also then do so on the rest of his property. So, um, go speak somewhere else? It sounds like you were being so disruptive during a movie that the owner decided it was in his best interest to remove you in order to better suit the desires of the rest of his patrons who can remain quiet during a movie.
So, this is something much more likely than an owner kicking out people who quietly “speak”, “Hey pass me the popcorn”. The way you termed your hypo is pathological, although still technically possible. If you want to continue to be a jackass, and you are a non-land-owning bum, I guess you might get kicked out of civil society. I don’t see what the rest of your last post has to do with my points. This is just basic libertarian right of free association stuff.
Right to free association of people who own land, you mean.
In a Rothbardian world, people who don’t own land will have no inherent right to associate anywhere, correct? They’ll only be able to speak where their betters agree to suffer their presence?
It seems less like libertarianism and more like feudalism.
I agree with a lot of you’re reasoning with regarding to the order of life, liberty and property. The concept of liberty and property are entirely created by the existence of reason in human beings. Life on the otherhand is the highest in the order. All creatures, from man to microbe, spend each day maintaining their right to life. Thus, the will to surive must supercede all else when the scenario calls for it.
I do however disagree with your conclusion about government porgrams. Possibly because I believe my concept of right to life is more strict than yours. In my mind, the right to life is only in conflict with liberty and property in extreme scenarios, like your “cabin scenario” where life is actually on the line, while otherwise the three and in alignment. The right to life does not imply the right to a “well off” life or a better life than you have. Furthermore, I am definitely against a third party entering the scenario and breaking someone else’s property rights in order to defend your right to life. I unknowing posted a similar scenario to your orginal post asking whether the forum members thought that a third party would be justified in stealing a loaf of bread from a merchant in order to feed a starving man (Thanks to ChroMattic for point me to this thread).
When acting indiviudally, the individal, after maintaining his life, can pay back the other party for any harm he may have cause that person in his attempt to maintain his own life. Third party involvement does not do that, it takes property from people and gives it to others that the third party deems fit, and in real life–almost always to someone who is not in a life threatening scenario.
The man in the standard bread-stealing scenario is a third party: he’s stealing it to feed his family, having been unable to earn sufficient bread to do so in trade.
That is just federal land ownership, not state, so that is a lot of unowned land.
Right to free association of people who own land, you mean.
In a Rothbardian world, people who don’t own land will have no inherent right to associate anywhere, correct? They’ll only be able to speak where their betters agree to suffer their presence?
It seems less like libertarianism and more like feudalism.
This is pretty ridiculous. I guess you are beyond hope. Everyone who is as obtuse as this will suffer from all those willing to trade with and rent to people who are willing to “let them speak”.
The man in the standard bread-stealing scenario is a third party: he’s stealing it to feed his family, having been unable to earn sufficient bread to do so in trade.
Food shortages are caused by government intervention and central planning or exacerbated by it in natural disasters. I guarantee that you can’t cite a single case to the contrary.
Food shortages are caused by government intervention and central planning or exacerbated by it in natural disasters. I guarantee that you can’t cite a single case to the contrary.
Well, here’s a list of countries that are having problems with famines:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mal_pre_hei_for_age_of_chi_und_5-height-age-children-under-5
The Netherlands has the least problem of any nation on the list, Would you argue that there’s a lack of government in the Netherlands?
The fact is that government is very effective, for those who control it. The government of the Netherlands is controlled by the people of the Netherlands; that is a big part of why there’s no starvation in the Netherlands.
Afghanistan is the second worst on the list. Whatever Afghanistan has, it’s not a government controlled by the people of Afghanistan. No one force controls the entire nation, and in no place are the pseudo-governments which are in place popularly controlled. Sure, it has adverse geography, but at least they’re above sea level.
If you want a specific example, I’ll suggest the Irish potato famine.
The Irish potato famine was caused by the “free market.” All throughout the famine, Ireland was producing good food, but exporting it, because Ireland was occupied by Britain, and the British argued that it was the “right” of the British landlords in Ireland to get a “fair market price” on the “free market,” for “their” crops, and this obviously didn’t involve selling anything to starving Irish peasants.
Records show Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests. No such export ban happened in the 1840s. (and 1.5 million people starved to death)
The democratic, independent nation of the Netherlands experienced almost exactly the same food crisis as the Irish in the 1840s: they experienced the same potato blight, and although they were less reliant on the potato, they had bad harvests in grain crops simultanously.
But there was no “Dutch potato famine,” because the democratic government of the Netherlands used democratic central planning to close the ports to food exports until the blight was over, forcing food prices down locally and averting a Dutch famine.
Data here:
This was the correct course of action, because markets are properly the servants of humanity, not its master, and the right to life of everyone precedes the right of anyone to make a profit, because our rights derive originally from life, not property, and Murray Rothbard was a neo-feudalist.
The Irish potato famine was caused by the “free market.” All throughout the famine, Ireland was producing good food, but exporting it, because Ireland was occupied by Britain, and the British argued that it was the “right” of the British landlords in Ireland to get a “fair market price” on the “free market,” for “their” crops, and this obviously didn’t involve selling anything to starving Irish peasants.
Do you read what you write or are you just trolling?
The Netherlands has the least problem of any nation on the list, Would you argue that there’s a lack of government in the Netherlands?
It’s a shame that you don’t see the problem with this logic.
Afghanistan is the second worst on the list. Whatever Afghanistan has, it’s not a government controlled by the people of Afghanistan. No one force controls the entire nation, and in no place are the pseudo-governments which are in place popularly controlled. Sure, it has adverse geography, but at least they’re above sea level.
Everyone knows this isn’t a free society. It’s currently occupied by the US and has been for a decade. For a decade before that, it was the host of the US-Soviet proxy war. Strike 2.
The fact is that government is very effective, for those who control it. The government of the Netherlands is controlled by the people of the Netherlands; that is a big part of why there’s no starvation in the Netherlands.
and Murray Rothbard was a neo-feudalist.
Political representation is a myth. I guess you can say that theft is very profitable when you can wrap it in the euphemism “taxation” and enough people buy it. It’s hard to say that it is legitimate when it is still theft. You are still having a correlation-causation problem here. I don’t expect better from anti-capitalist trolls who can’t tell the difference between feudalism, state-corporatists-capitalism, and genuine free market capitalism. I can name country after country where there is democratically elected leaders and famine.
Records show Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests. No such export ban happened in the 1840s. (and 1.5 million people starved to death)
You’ve ignored quite a bit of history here. Was this port privately owned and operated?
In 1845, Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid declared his intention to send £10,000 to Irish farmers but Queen Victoria requested that the Sultan send only £1000, because she herself had sent only £2000. The Sultan sent the £1000 sterling but also secretly sent three ships full of food. The English courts tried to block the ships, but the food arrived at Drogheda harbour and was left there by Ottoman sailors.[70]
I guess the free market isn’t to blame. Oops, you failed, but it’s interesting that you refer to the potato famine as a case of market failure. It’s actually a great case for state-sponsored genocide. Treveleyan worried that killing a million Irish wasn’t enough. Unless you can actually make a decent case, I am just going to ignore you Benjamin. I know that nobody can cite an adequate case, and I won’t have the thread go too off track with you trying. Here are two things to read, and if anyone is interested please make a new thread.
But there was no “Dutch potato famine,” because the democratic government of the Netherlands used democratic central planning to close the ports to food exports until the blight was over, forcing food prices down locally and averting a Dutch famine.
Data here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Potato_Failure
This was the correct course of action, because markets are properly the servants of humanity, not its master, and the right to life of everyone precedes the right of anyone to make a profit, because our rights derive originally from life, not property, and Murray Rothbard was a neo-feudalist.
That data in no way backs up your statement that “closing the ports forced food prices down”. In fact, it contradicts basic economics, given that there was a demand for foreign potatos. If you want to say “prices compared to Ireland”, there are, again, other factors involved. Your article says that conditions in other parts of Europe (the natural disaster of potato blight) were not so bad as Ireland to cause mass exodus. I’m not asking for human error, “acts of god”, etc. for a cause of famine. I was asking for capitalism, free trade, the process responsible for civilization as a cause for famine. Given our current technology, it is basically impossible that more than a few people would be dying of starvation if the world were free of government.
Finally, The Netherlands was still a constitutional monarchy until becoming a parliamentary democracy in 1848, toward the time of Irish rebellion and the end of the crisis.
I agree with the original wording of the Declaration of Independence; that everyone has the rights to “life, liberty, and property.”
The Declaration of Independence doesn’t say “life, liberty, and property”. It says “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. All of which require property in order to “exist” in any coherent way.