Liberty is not the ultimate value

[vive_la_insurrection]

I don’t know how well or how comfortable I feel articulating such an answer in grand detail. It seems as if it would require a lot of thought, “dehomogenization” of thought, and citations to put in a forum answer, and may drift from the topic at hand. Besides all that this is kind of newer spin I’ve been giving my “social perspective” - so this is kind of thinking is new to me.

If you want specific answers, or can narrow concerns down a bit PM me and we can continue the conversation.

Other than that here are some concerncs that I will address right now:

1. Austrolibertarians can not be addressed - as it is a political position. I simply am not very good at knowing what is meant by “exact” political positions, nor is it much of my concern

2. I don’t want to speak for exact Keynesian refutations on LTV theorists, but I don’t think anybody post Marginal Revolution (Menger / Jevons /Walras) agrees with LTV all too much. And Keynes the man was much more concerned with uncertainty than anything.. He was ultimately a responsable subjectivist. This type of Keynesianism may be contra to more “mainline” (e.g.Krugman) Keynesianism - but it is a legit facet of Keynesianism.

3. Property may or may not be absolute depending on the definition, and it will almost always deserve the answer from a social outlook of “that’s ver interesting but so what?”.

Property rights are simply reflective of whatever customs are in place at the time. I don’t think Keynes would ever say “this is the solution that must always be done”…in fact I think, to his credit, he would shun such an outlook.

“When the facts change, I change my mind”

and

“In the long run we are all dead”

Are two good popular quotes by Keynes to think about when dealing in the world of real human action and perspectives.

[Autolykos]

@mustang1912

The right to defend your property to the fullest extent.

Okay, that’s clearer. Let me present you with a few statements I agree with:

1. A person who shoots and kills someone for simply trespassing on his property has committed murder (i.e. unlawful/unjustified killing).

2. A baker who cuts off the hand of a bread thief has committed mayhem.

3. A miner who dumps slag on his neighbor’s property without his neighbor’s consent has committed trespassing, if not also property damage.

Based on the above, do you think I believe in an absolute right to property?

[gotlucky]

The right to defend your property to the fullest extent. What did the other guy think I meant?

Well, if that’s the case, then your post that I will requote now is a strawman:

The absolute right to property is a fundament of libertarianism. That the real world application of absolute rights over property would devolve into retardation necessitating a foregoing of that right in order to meaningfully interact doesn’t detract from the flaws of having it as a keystone of the philosophy. To whit, even though the real world consequences, in libertopia, of shooting someone for stealing my bread would be that i would be shunned and probably murdered by my community, the community wouldn’t be able to arrest me or posse up to hunt me (or the rights respecting equivalent) because the killing would be in self-defence (of the labour imbued in my bread).

To disagree with this implies that it is acceptable to take some portion of my labour if it will save another person’s life - in fact, it justifies taxation.

As I said, this is a strawman of the libertarian position on property rights. Especially considering that libertarians do not always agree.

[Torsten]

1. A person who shoots and kills someone for simply trespassing on his property has committed murder (i.e. unlawful/unjustified killing).

I guess you mean somebody just trespassing over the unfenced lawn. Not somebody trespassing into your bedroom at night. Given the murder crime scenes I’ve seen here in South Africa, I actually don’t think shooting a “trespasser” isn’t that unjustified. But I guess you had a more peaceful situation in mind.
However I don’t think that killing a trespasser is murder, it can be manslaughter, but murder would have to be planned to kill that specific person.

A baker who cuts off the hand of a bread thief has committed mayhem.

Agree, this would be out of proportion.

3. A miner who dumps slag on his neighbor’s property without his neighbor’s consent has committed trespassing, if not alsoproperty damage.

That would manifest itself as a civil claim for the damages or incured labor.

On a general note I agree. There are also other reasons why property can not be absolute and is actually relative to several condition. There is for instance modalities that can be in place. The property you may have in your home, differs from the property you may have in a field you use as grazing ground for your cattle. I would also say that property in an area land is different from property in a personal item.

[mustang1912]

I don’t know how well or how comfortable I feel articulating such an answer in grand detail.

Well, I’m still not sure how LTV and Keynes disagree on how property works. But thanks for the explanation.

Based on the above, do you think I believe in an absolute right to property?

Nope, which is a good start and shows that you value human life above property protection.

Well, if that’s the case, then your post that I will requote now is a strawman:

So that’s the “disagree” part.

[vive_la_insurrection]

Well, I’m still not sure how LTV and Keynes disagree on how property works.

I may just not be understanding you. I am trying to illustrate Keynes as a subjectivist, where an LTV (or any OTV) is going to be inelastic and self defeating concerning property. Furthermore, I am also trying to make sure that we have an economic concept of property that is different than a legal concept of property rights. In the legal / political version, not much can be said.

If that isn’t what you are trying to say can you restate please?

Also if you’re interested in this type of thing, here is a much smarter article than my ramblings showing Keynes and Hayek as subjective theorists:

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/keyneshayek.pdf

[gotlucky]

So that’s the “disagree” part.

No. You said, and this is a direct quote:

The absolute right to property is a fundament of libertarianism.

Considering how you defined “absolute right to property”, this statement is a straw man. It is not an accurate representation of the NAP or libertarian thought.

[mustang1912]

If that isn’t what you are trying to say can you restate please?

Well, besides what Gotlucky is discussing with me, I’d like to know how exactly LTV is meant as an objective theory of value. The way Marx is using “objective” isn’t the same as your use. The “objective value” in LTV is simply the physical characteristics of the product- the nutrient count of a potato, the speed of a car. Subjective value depends on how these physical characteristics are actually judged useful.

Considering how you defined “absolute right to property”, this statement is a straw man. It is not an accurate representation of the NAP or libertarian thought.

You’re right, I overgeneralized. Libertarians really are willing to trade some property protection for saving a person’s life. At least the reasonable ones are.

[gotlucky]

You’re right, I overgeneralized. Libertarians really are willing to trade some property protection for saving a person’s life. At least the reasonable ones are.

It has nothing to do with trading property protection. Libertarians believe that people have property in themselves. That’s why Rothbard talks about the bubblegum thief. Just because the bubblegum thief has stolen from the shop owner does not mean that the shop owner can now execute the bubblegum thief. The shop owner would have violated the rights of the bubblegum thief more than the bubblegum thief would have violated the rights of the shop owner.

[vive_la_insurrection]

The “objective value” in LTV is simply the physical characteristics of the product- the nutrient count of a potato, the speed of a car. Subjective value depends on how these physical characteristics are actually judged useful.

lol, still don’t know if I am reading you correctly but I’ll try to answer anyway*:

A preface, there are a lot of debates among Marxists as to “what Marx really meant”, so there is only so much I can even allow myself to think or engage. Marx’s becomes nearly impossible to seperate from alienation and exploitation, which are discredited concepts. The more these theories started to fail in mainstream econ (the 50’s and 60’s) the more economists started shifting towards “market failure” (or more recent “agent failure”) models.

Also, to use the Bohm-Bawerkian critique on the Marxian LTV, which many Marxists agreed with (such as the emminate leading Marxist theorist Roudolf Hilferding): Das Kapital’s 3rd volume on his theory of value contradict his first.

• I think what happened is I misread you to begin with, so now if you have a simple question, it doesn’t matter as my entire brain is in a state of shock and recalibration

[mustang1912]

• I think what happened is I misread you to begin with, so now if you have a simple question, it doesn’t matter as my entire brain is in a state of shock and recalibration

Well, that’s a whole nother tangent. But alright, you don’t like Marx.

It has nothing to do with trading property protection. Libertarians believe that people have property in themselves. That’s why Rothbard talks about the bubblegum thief. Just because the bubblegum thief has stolen from the shop owner does not mean that the shop owner can now execute the bubblegum thief. The shop owner would have violated the rights of the bubblegum thief more than the bubblegum thief would have violated the rights of the shop owner.

And this comparison acknowledges that these rights conflict, and your opinion about the thief’s rights overrides the shop owner’s right to fully defend his property. Which is a necessary exception to property defense in order to prevent libertopia from descending into stupidity.

[vive_la_insurrection]

But alright, you don’t like Marx.

Now you’re misreading me.

You ar speaking of Marxist LTV and Marxism specifically and I am saying there is no coherent single answer, (as is the same with any school of thought). Furthrmore there seems to be at least a few recognized inconsistancies as to what marx meant by his LTV - both within and without of Marxist circles.

Furthermore you are trying to give me the properties of Marxism and it’s relation to LTV - and I am saying so far as I know, it is intrinsically tied to exploitation and alienation as explaining the “physical characteristics” of things. In so much as he finds “alienation”, etc a given fact - he is giving objective valuations / psychologisms. Austrian economics is anti psychologism / anti polylogism. This is a hallmark of it’s views on subjectivism

I don’t think it is too contraversial to think Marxist economic doctrine is widely discredited amongst mainstream sociologists, politicians, and economists - much less Austrians or librtarians.

[gotlucky]

And this comparison acknowledges that these rights conflict, and your opinion about the thief’s rights overrides the shop owner’s right to fully defend his property. Which is a necessary exception to property defense in order to prevent libertopia from descending into stupidity.

It seems that you have a confused understanding of what rights are. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition of “rights” in its article:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

In other words, “rights” have to do with who is in the right. Legal rights, just rights, and moral rights are all different categories, though they may overlap depending upon context. So, when we say that the bubblegum thief has violated the rights of the shopkeeper, we are saying that the bubblegum thief is acting in the wrong. The shopkeeper would be acting in the right if he reclaimed the bubblegum, but he needs to do it without violating the rights of the thief. Not all libertarians agree on how much force the shopkeeper is allowed to use. Some claim that the shopkeeper can shoot the bubblegum thief if he is running away, while others claim that the shopkeeper can only use lethal force when the bubblegum thief has escalated the situation to that level of violence.

Rothbard, and most libertarians for that matter, do not believe that it is just for the shopkeeper to shoot the bubblegum thief, unless the thief has escalated the conflict to deadly force. In other words, if the shopkeeper shoots the bubblegum thief, he is now acting in the wrong.

The shopkeeper would be in the right to defend his bubblegum from being stolen, but just because he would be in the right regarding the bubblegum does not mean he would be in the right for executing the bubblegum thief. It is not correct to say that their rights conflict, as that implies that the only way for the shopkeeper to maintain his rights over the bubblegum would be to violate the rights of the bubblegum thief. But this is not true. The shopkeeper can confront the thief about the stolen bubblegum. If the thief refuses to return the bubblegum, the shopkeeper can take it back by force, but he cannot use just any amount of force. Anyway, this is getting away from the main issue of rights.

To say that the shopkeeper has a right to fully defend his property is to miss the point entirely. According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper would be in the wrong to fully defend his property with lethal force if the situation hasn’t called for it. So the shopkeeper cannot be said to have the right to “fully defend” his property in the situation of the bubblegum thief. According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper has the right to reclaim his property, by force if necessary, but he can only use the amount necessary to reclaim his property from the thief - he can’t just use whatever amount of force he desires.

And most libertarian anarchists happen to agree with Rothbard on this issue. Not all do, but you won’t find too many libertarians here who think it is necessarily just to escalate to deadly force in the defense of property. Most libertarians recognize that these issues are complex.

[Anenome]

There’s a few rather unique situations where one could reasonably use deadly force to maintain property, almost all dealing with cases where if you don’t have the thing about to be stolen, your own imminent death is likely. I suppose if you were scuba diving, deep, and someone stole the regulator out of your mouth Or if you’re in a survival situaiton and someone steals your insulin supply.

[gotlucky]

@gotlucky

According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper would be in the wrong to fully defend his property with lethal force if the situation hasn’t called for it.

Sounds like those situations call for it.

[mustang1912]

It is not correct to say that their rights conflict, as that implies that the only way for the shopkeeper to maintain his rights over the bubblegum would be to violate the rights of the bubblegum thief. But this is not true.

But shooting the thief could permanently and easily solve the problem. The shopkeeper is sacrificing some of his own ability to defend his property to preserve the thief’s life. In that sense, there’s a conflict of rights.

To say that the shopkeeper has a right to fully defend his property is to miss the point entirely. According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper would be in the wrong to fully defend his property with lethal force if the situation hasn’t called for it. So the shopkeeper cannot be said to have the right to “fully defend” his property in the situation of the bubblegum thief. According to Rothbard, the shopkeeper has the right to reclaim his property, by force if necessary, but he can only use the amount necessary to reclaim his property from the thief - he can’t just use whatever amount of force he desires.

No, he can’t use whatever amount of force he desires. At least I hope he can’t. In determining what the situation calls for, you’ve valued human life over the shopowner’s property. This is the same ranking of values that can be used to justify taxation. You’re just selectively applying your values to accord with libertarianism and haven’t realized it yet.

[Autolykos]

@Torsten

I guess you mean somebody just trespassing over the unfenced lawn. Not somebody trespassing into your bedroom at night. Given the murder crime scenes I’ve seen here in South Africa, I actually don’t think shooting a “trespasser” isn’t that unjustified. But I guess you had a more peaceful situation in mind.

Right. I guess I could’ve specified more, but I figured I’d wait to see what kind(s) of response I got.

@Torsten

However I don’t think that killing a trespasser is murder, it can be manslaughter, but murder would have to be planned to kill that specific person.

Here you’re using a different definition of “murder” than the one I used in that post, which was “unlawful/unjustified killing”. With that definition, there’s no distinction between the typical modern-day statist definitions for “murder” and “manslaughter”.

@Torsten

That would manifest itself as a civil claim for the damages or incured labor.

It could also manifest itself as the miner either restoring his neighbor’s property himself or hiring someone to do so. I guess that would qualify as injunctive relief.

@Torsten

On a general note I agree. There are also other reasons why property can not be absolute and is actually relative to several condition. There is for instance modalities that can be in place. The property you may have in your home, differs from the property you may have in a field you use as grazing ground for your cattle. I would also say that property in an area land is different from property in a personal item.

Can you elaborate on this, please? I’m not quite sure what you mean.

[gotlucky]

But shooting the thief could permanently and easily solve the problem. The shopkeeper is sacrificing some of his own ability to defend his property to preserve the thief’s life. In that sense, there’s a conflict of rights.

The bolded and underlined is correct. But it is not a conflict of rights. It is only a conflict of rights if the shopkeeper cannot protect his property without violating the rights of the thief. But this is not the case. The shopkeeper can defend his property without violating the rights of the thief. So there is no conflict of rights.

No, he can’t use whatever amount of force he desires. At least I hope he can’t. In determining what the situation calls for, you’ve valued human life over the shopowner’s property. This is the same ranking of values that can be used to justify taxation. You’re just selectively applying your values to accord with libertarianism and haven’t realized it yet.

The values of taxation are entirely different from the values of libertarianism. Taxation calls for aggression, which by definition cannot be reconciled with libertarianism. The only relevant value to justifying taxation is whether one believes that the use of aggression can be justified. It has nothing to do with valuing life over property or vice versa. Seeing as I do not believe aggression is ever justified, then I do not believe taxation can ever be justified. Nice try.

[Autolykos]

@mustang1912

This is the same ranking of values that can be used to justify taxation.

Certainly there are ways for one to justify taxation - and anything else. However, that doesn’t mean anyone else has to accept those justifications.

[acft]

Mustang said “But shooting the thief could permanently and easily solve the problem.”

Yes, do it. Why am I concerned about the rights of a theif? Defense of their “rights” seems to me like defense of aggression.