The reason the title of this post is in quotes is because it is a quote made by my political philosophy professor. I kid you not when I tell you she has a Ph.D. (I visited her office to make sure she’s not just the janitor–she’s got the diploma right there on her wall.) She made similar comments about Robert Nozick when we were discussing Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
I have had in-class discussions and debates in the past with her, so when she said this, a couple students turned and looked at me, obviously expecting me to respond. I made a quick mental calculation and realized that I could not respond without using the phrase “profound ignorance.” Because I value my grade, I simply sat quietly and emotionless.
My question for you selfish libertarians who don’t want to share is: How might one respond to this while still being respectful (or is it possible)?
I could understand a misguided Statist say this about a radical libertarian like Rothbard, but Locke? Seriously? Why is anything he ever said about property really that controversial?
Ever since I got into Austrian economics and anti-statism I’ve been noticing that many people don’t seem to understand why we have property. I can’t help but think it has a lot to do with the society we live in (public education, culture, news media) and is not something one would expect in a healthier intellectual environment.
I ask you one thing: is being “selfish” such a bad thing? Is keeping your own property to yourself as bad as robbing and murdering? Of course not, especially given the fact that the biggest supporters of “forced sharing” usually refuse to share their own large paychecks, luxury cars and big houses with the rest of us and can afford to hire top grade lawyers and accountants that will find loopholes to allow them to pay less than their “due” without breaking the law.
The usual example: the revolting Bono (the singer from the band U2, not the late Sonny Bono) and all those mega-rich stars cheerleading for taxing this and taxing that in name of “fighting poverty”, “fighting global warming” or whatever is fancy and trendy at the moment. They could start by willingly donating a small part of their own wealth but do they do it? Absolutely not. At the best they’ll hold a “fundraising event” which cost them exactly zero because donations are made after expenses like flying in Gulfstream jets and dining on exotic foods are deducted. But they are very vocal in supporting the use of coercion to force the rest of us to “share” with the rest of the world what our own elected officials graciously allow us to keep at the end of the year. Who’s being really selfish here?
PS: you did well by not replying and keeping silent. No point in debating academics living in ivory towers.