It's been a long year, longer for some than others. As we draw to the end of it and hopefully in a goodwill spirit often so lacking when this question is raised, I will re-visit an article recently posted by John that received quite a lot of interest. By the end it was, frankly, wholly depressing and made me seriously question what the whole point of libertarianism is. Hence why I haven't been about.
Libertarianism is fundamentally about liberty, that is why it has those first five letters. It is about the liberty of the individual for self-determination in this big bad world and for the removal of state control from our lives. If you call yourself a libertarian and you disagree with this, please leave the room.
Many people who are libertarians subsequently diverge over how this is to be achieved. This is both healthy and desired. There are those on the left that want a state to remain, but for the individual to be socially free, there are those on the right that want no state at all and for the individual to be totally socially and economically free. There are those in the middle, like us, that see the merits of both and take a pragmatic approach. As far as anyone on the let is concerned, the right are extremists. As far as the right is concerned, everyone else is a social-democrat.
One of the central methods for creating this freedom are through the individuals right to property. Property is bricks and mortar, but it is also money and stocks and shares. Therefore, a liberty to do with as as you will within your built property as well as your money.
A huge caveat is inserted within libertarianism that is totally ignored, especially by the right: non-aggression.
Non-aggression. Usually this is used by libertarians in our views against war - the removal of a states liberty by force. However, it is also intended as the removal of liberty by any entity at any level.
Libertarianism is about liberty.
The row here is simple. You have the right to your property, in this case land and bricks, and you have the right of self-determination with that space. Fine. And it is fine, it is central. What we have been arguing, however, is that this right does not give you the right for the removal of other's liberty.
I see this as being remarkably simple.
Here the argument usually gets totally bogged down in the most depressing fashion with the definition of public space. This can literally go on for eternity, but to make this fairly clear, by public I am not talking about publicly owned, i.e. state owned.
Anyone has the right to life, liberty and property provided that it does not remove the life, liberty and property of anyone else. This too I see as being incredibly simple to grasp. Apparently not.
Libertarians, in my view, strive to create a better world. One where people are in control of their own destiny through their own lives and exist in peaceful harmony with others. That is the balance we are seeking in place of the state. Why do we have a state? We have it as a protector. I'm talking proper back in time why even created states here. The state is given certain powers by us in order that they protect us.
We then have a contract between us that means we don't attack each other and the state, if you do we go to prison for instance, and the state doesn't attack us, we rebel etc. The whole raison d'etre of libertarianism is to re-balance that contract.
For those that want the state to be limited to a tiny role, the basic requirement therefore is to have that contract between the people themselves. It relies on people trusting and participating. History tells us that this doesn't happen and that is why I am not of this sphere of libertarianism.
But that contract is required to various degrees based on your view. I won't remove your life, liberty or property and you will do the same.
This is where we hit the problem. The hard right of libertarianism, who claim to be the mainstream, state that it is in fact property that is the central line here, not liberty. All that matters is that the individual has the right to do whatever they want within their property, no matter what that property is.
In fact, it goes so far that it ends up with the owner of the property may totally and utterly remove all liberty from those that are within it. No matter the size of this property.
This is terrifying. The natural result of this is that the owner of the property is now the state. The property can be your garden, or it can be the Duchy of Cornwall. It can be entire business developments, or housing estates. The owner has the right to remove all liberty within. The response is often that the market would come to the fore and it would never happen. It has happened, it is happening and history tells us that when it does people do what people have always done, they shrug and they get on with it.
The non-aggression caveat goes out the window, because it gets in the way of letting people do, basically, whatever they want to do.
So, as I ask in the title, what is the point? If this is a widely held view (mainly in American Libertarianism it should be noted), then all we have done is remove the power of the state over us, the individual, and handed it straight, not to the people, but to the property owning minority.
It is that small percentage that actually own pretty much everything who are now in control. They have the right, it is argued, to remove your liberty because it is their property. In fact they have the right to remove your life as well if the comments once made about Tony Martin are anything to go by.
So, what's the point in libertarianism if the only liberty it is fighting for is the total liberty of the few? Is that really liberty? Is that really what we are arguing for?
What I have been arguing is that the non-aggression, non-removal of life, liberty and property caveat be observed. That we don't simply focus on the rights in our living room and look beyond that to the dangers some are embracing. Otherwise, we might as well just keep the system we already have, which would appear, on the face of it, to ensure more of us more liberty than that of the libertarian spectrum's anarchist element.
I refuse to accept that this is what libertarianism is about and I refuse to accept that this is the world in which libertarians from across the spectrum want to see. Libertarianism is about liberty, a liberty secured by your right to determine your own destiny through your own dwelling, your own income, your own life. A liberty that does not at any point reach a stage where you remove that liberty from someone else.
Libertarianism is, fundamentally, about the liberty of you, me and everybody. Not the few.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Libertarianism - So what's the point?
Posted by Kevin Boatang at 13:16
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
I'm still unsure of my stance on this topic, though the thread regarding the crisp selling kid did make a very interesting read.
Would you be able to elaborate slightly? Could you provide an example of property rules that would be permitted, vs some that would not. Please try not to give extremes, try and draw examples as close to the dividing line as possible.
You're the only one (well, two) making hard work of it. Property rights are absolute in Libertarianism, that's where the liberties derive from.
You may resent the fact that the owner of Connaught Square can refuse public access, but that's what happens when you own shit. And because he can refuse your access, if he does grant you access, it's on his terms by default - you can always try to negotiate special conditions and, if it's in his interest, he will probably accede.
I can't really see what the issue is. If I were to murder you in my home, my fucking property rights wouldn't protect me, would they? But I'm afraid that not letting you into my house with an "Obo is a cunt" T-shirt does not constitute a violation of your freedom of speech.
The problem is entirely with the mighty B&D on this one. You have a warped understanding of what freedom of speech is and that is the root cause of your dilemma. Free speech is not the right to say whatever you like wherever you want to say it.
As you well know when you use bad language in front of your mother in her house.
I'm also unclear on where lines are drawn. Based on earlier discussions, property owner "X" isn't allowed to steal from or otherwise harm person "Y" on his property (except in self defence). We might say that "Y" has some inalieable rights: specifically, the right to his own property, including his life.
Seems like this is a question of what rights are actually inalieable. B&D think that "Y" has rights to privacy and free speech even when he is standing on "X"'s land as a visitor or tenant... in addition to the rights that Obo thinks "Y" has. Whereas Obo feels these additional rights violate the owner's right to his own property.
The whole debate would be easier if we could distinguish between truly private property (the living room, the bedroom) and private property that is open to the public (the shopping mall, the city square). I think "X" has to concede some rights to his visitors or tenants in the latter cases, because their expectations of privacy and freedom are quite reasonable in what appears to be a public place. If "X" does not accept this, he can always deny access to the public or sell the property.
Another relevant case is the one where "Y" rents a house owned by "X". "Y" can't expect to treat the house as his own, but equally "X" must concede some rights to "Y", such as the right to privacy in that house.
"I think "X" has to concede some rights to his visitors or tenants in the latter cases, because their expectations of privacy and freedom are quite reasonable in what appears to be a public place."
Nonsense. If you are private land and the owner exercises his rights, you have no particular recourse, just because you *thought* it was public.
"Another relevant case is the one where "Y" rents a house owned by "X". "Y" can't expect to treat the house as his own, but equally "X" must concede some rights to "Y", such as the right to privacy in that house."
Unannounced inspections, anyone?
You don't have any implied rights because you are renting someone else's property other than what you explicitly agree in the contract (and obviously, what the law of the land decrees.)
There seems to be a confusion between "rights" and "manners" or "rubbing along". Because someone tolerates things out of manners, greed or for some other reason is *not* the same as a right.
Obo "Democracy is the tyranny of the masses". I suggest people keep that view in mind here.
I don't think people should do whatever they want to do, I have simply never said that. What you can or cannot do depends upon the social contract in place in the given situation.
At the end of the day, Obo and his hard right chums wish to give the existing power of the state over our liberty to private property owning individuals. Those that own no property thus have no liberty.
They are totally reliant upon the freeholder for their liberty in exactly the same way as we are now on the state.
I always thought we desired a world where people defined their own destiny and were not drones that simply abdicated security and the protection of their liberty to a higher power, be it the state or otherwise.
LIBERTY. Why are you so fucking ready to handover your fucking liberty to the person who controls your county, or housing estate or anything else?
So what's the point in it all? We now rely upon the state for our liberty, the right want us to rely upon the individual for our liberty. For the vast majority of people there will be no self-determined existance. You have handed them from the state, to the landowner.
Property is the means to achieve the end. The end is liberty. Individual liberty instead of having that liberty controlled by outside forces.
There is a tipping point where the property leads to the direct removal of that individual liberty. That is all we are saying.
But you're thinking about property rights like a statist. Certainly in the UK, bricks and mortar property is valuable because its use is so tightly restricted. If there was no regulation about where you could build a Tesco, would the land upon which you built a Tesco be so valuable?
See here for more details.
What seems to be overlooked is the process of getting from "here" to "there". were we to do away with the state overnight, then the property (and therefore the power) will go straight from the state to those individuals who own most of the property, because those people already own the property. if all the shopping malls or housing estates or whatever are owned by the same cartel then it's going to take a long time for the market to work, if those few landlords who don't allow your t-shirt or want to enter your rented home whenever they please to be pushed out by more reasonable competitors. It would happen eventually but lots of peoples liberty would be compromised in the meantime.
If we could somehow tear the whole thing down and start again, perhaps the market would kick gin a lo sooner, but would anybody want all the chaos that would cause? I've more thoughts but i might blog them myself, as there is more food for thought than comment allows...
But wh00ps, if there is no more planning permission, then all land is (more or less) equally valuable. All those property portfolios will equalize out in value very, very quickly.
The individuals who own a lot of property will find that property is, overnight, no more valuable than any other usable land in the country. Business land is valuable because of the planning permission attached to it. Residential land is slightly less valuable because of the permission attached to that. If you did away with planning permission completely, then all business and residential land would become less valuable.
You can only assume that the massive power that property companies have will remain if you assume that the planning permission (regulation) that underpins that power remains in place.
"All those property portfolios will equalize out in value very, very quickly."
Utterly deluded, basically because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Land is not valued purely on possible planning consent, but on location and opportunity, as well as development costs.
Also, the major reason planning was introduced for most land was to protect it for agriculture so we can feed ourselves. Agricultural land, planning or not, is worth shit.
That is not the debate though Obo, and once again you have lowered the entire thing to Tescos and planning permission.
We are talking about liberty and who has control of it.
"Land is not valued purely on possible planning consent, but on location and opportunity, as well as development costs."
I agree that location and development costs are also a factor, but by far the biggest restriction on the availability of development is obtaining planning permission, which is a) expensive and b) extremely time-consuming to obtain.
If you had free rein to a) build a shop anywhere and b) trade anywhere, it would a) become a lot cheaper to build retail space so existing retail space would become less valuable and b) competition to attack various niches would become more prevalent, otherwise diminishing the power of corporates.
"That is not the debate though Obo, and once again you have lowered the entire thing to Tescos and planning permission.
We are talking about liberty and who has control of it."
But if Tesco becomes less powerful through this two-pronged attack on their corporatist power, how will they enforce unreasonable controls on your liberty?
I mentioned rented houses in order to make a point about rental contracts and the free market. It is my understanding that current rental contracts have to adhere to various laws which exist primarily to protect the tenant from the landlord. At one time, these laws did not exist, and landlords could legally behave as they pleased, if it was in the contract. The result was large areas of badly maintained slum housing, high rents and overcrowding.
The free market should have forced the landlords to improve conditions, since the tenants could live somewhere that offered more reasonable conditions. But somehow this didn't happen until the Government intervened.
Of course I would agree that not every Government intervention in this sector was helpful. But I'm talking about the 19th century, long before "tower blocks" were the "solution".
The 19th C worked well for Britain because of classical liberalism and the laissez-faire economy. While the 19th C was a time of unprecedented social mobility with many people joining the middle class and becoming property and business owners, it was also a time where the poor were essentially shat on by people who could get away with it. What happened was very much like theft: although technically the poor handed over their labour and money willingly in exchange for a shitty lifestyle, in practice they had no choice but to do so.
The answer to this isn't Marxism, it's just to limit what a property owner can do to his tenants and visitors, and what rights an employee should have. If the property or business owner can set whatever conditions he wants, history tells us that he will abuse this. The law is required to set sensible limits: nowhere near the extremes advocated by the lefties, but just enough to ensure that the rights of each person are protected.
Quite simply, this is just an extension of the rights we already agree are inalieable.
Are you using the modern definition of 'property' (i.e. a house) or the classical one (i.e. yourself and your possessions)?
It looks like this is causing some problems for you.
@BenS - I'm using the classical one, but it applies to property in the modern sense as well - I mean, in the sense that I own my house or shopping centre or whatever.
@Vladimir - unfortunately, I don't know my history well enough to know what all the constraints were upon people in the times you're referring to. However, it's possible that there was a residual oligopoly of land-owners as a result of monarchy and feudalism, and there was also a severe deficit in education so that people did not really know what they could do about it.
The system of bonded labour you're talking about is profoundly un-libertarian, as the bonded workers did not own themselves and the fruits of their labour.
"If the property or business owner can set whatever conditions he wants, history tells us that he will abuse this."
Where does history tell us this? As it stands, the property owner can set any condition he wants - that is still true. But you don't have to accept it. You can go somewhere else. Are you familiar with the old Latin saying: "Caveat emptor"? It's never been more true. Just because government legislation reduces people's need to think critically about the contracts they sign, does not mean that this is a good idea. If people thought that every contract was the opportunity for a world of pain, they'd make sure they understood it completely and not agree to anything they didn't want to.
But thanks to regulation, everyone "knows" they have "rights" and thinks the "government protects them". So they sign any old shit without reading it, and then ... get the idea that property owners are all cunts out to impose crazy rules on them ... hmmm ...
"The law is required to set sensible limits"
No. You have the right to negotiate a contract that is mutually beneficial. The government should exist to enforce that contract.
What is a sensible limit for me may be totally unacceptable to you. What you may consider sensible may unacceptable to me. So who gets to decide what a sensible limit is, you or me?
One of us is going to lose out, that's for sure!
Well, I don't really understand what the fuss is about. No, you can't invite somebody into your house for reason X then shoot them in the face. But you can invite someone into your house on condition X (where 'X' is 'you don't smoke', 'you don't sell crisps', whatever) and eject them if they don't agree.
Not really sure what this has to do with liberty. As Obo already noted somewhere here, one of the biggest reasons why so much realty is concentrated into the hands of few people [including the state] are the barriers to entry. No barriers + enforcement of anti-fraud laws = more competition.
If I understand this post correctly, doesn't it basically give with one hand while taking with the other? So, just a more balanced example of the situation we're in now anyway.
BenS I think I agree, I cannot realistically think of a situation where a property owner could get away with dangerously restricting another's liberty without breaking the law.
I suppose it could come down to silly circumstances, such as "you must wear no clothes on this estate", and people may not be able to afford to move. Usually the case is that they would be capable of moving, even if to the house of a friend or family member.
B&D please read Nozick or someone else who covers the basics. It's hard to believe you are still banging on about what seems to be a misunderstanding on your part.
No, it is not us who misunderstand libertarianism, it is right wing libertarians who misunderstand us.
The trouble is with you depressing extremists, is that you read what you want to read. You see what you want to see. You don't read what we say, and properly think it through.
We totally respect and understand the importance and legitimacy of private property rights. We simply appreciate that with those rights, come the responsibility towards respecting the rights of one's fellow man.
How is that anti liberty?
So you do not agree that if you have in your property a fair size house, that you should not be able to make the rules for staying there?
Where does this 'responsibility' enter into that equation?
It doesn't.
This is proof, yet again, that people choose to read what they want to read and believe who they want to believe (Obo).
A house is a man's private fiefdom and cannot be trespassed upon. There is no question of public access and public rights for OBVIOUS REASONS.
As KB and I have explained a thousand times, we are talking about rights for those who have access to private space and where there is an expected degree of public interaction and involvement.
A debating forum, a theatre, a shopping mall, land with access, etc etc etc etc.
Why are people trying to say that we think people have rights to fuck around in peoples' front rooms?
We have never said that.
So please stop repeating lies.
As JD said.
This sums it up
"one of the biggest reasons why so much realty is concentrated into the hands of few people [including the state] are the barriers to entry. No barriers + enforcement of anti-fraud laws = more competition."
No, it's not. It is because people own it, because they have always owned it. End of.
The situations we describe have already happened. Places like Docklands have huge restrictions on liberty, which the right feel is fine because its 'their property', but it isn't becaue it is an act of aggression against that liberty.
We're not, and never have, talked about basic property your house living room blah blah blah, we're taling large scale public access here. That, by your views, is just as much private property as anywhere else, which it clearly isnt.
As a fundamental, we are always amazed that peopel are so reluctant to talk about it and its natural conclusions, which are dismissed as 'never happen' on blind faith.
@JD 'Why are people trying to say that we think people have rights to fuck around in peoples' front rooms?'
Because, to me, it amounts to the same thing. Only the invitation is explicit if you own a shopping mall. And even then you still can't shoot them in the face.
@KB 'The situations we describe have already happened. Places like Docklands have huge restrictions on liberty, which the right feel is fine because its 'their property', but it isn't becaue it is an act of aggression against that liberty.'
Aggression transcends the realm of fair warning and the option to go elsewhere?
Was the smoking ban an act of aggression against property owners, or was smoking in pubs and restaurants an act of aggression against customers, employees and the public?
'We're not, and never have, talked about basic property your house living room blah blah blah, we're taling large scale public access here. That, by your views, is just as much private property as anywhere else, which it clearly isnt.'
Well, I rather think it is. It's just in the owner's best interests to have relaxed rules etc if he plans on selling anything (which presumably is the point of having large scale public access). I mean, of course somebody might decide to buy up the street I live in, charge me £200 for the pleasure of using it, and set the dogs on me every time I trespass. Most libertarians, I think, would prefer to deal with this arsewipe as a private citizen than deal with the state.
"We totally respect and understand the importance and legitimacy of private property rights. We simply appreciate that with those rights, come the responsibility towards respecting the rights of one's fellow man."
And yet you keep repeating things which imply a lack of understanding.
As I said if you read Nozick or anyone else who deals with these basic issues it would make discussing the problem with you much easier. I think that if you did the argument would cease to exist.
For starters, aggression is not shooting int he face, for fuck sake people do some reading yes? The removal of liberty, that is the aggression. And no, the smoking ban is not a good example at all. That is a two way action with effects on both parties that should be left to individuals.
Example (real world). A government body sets up within a private development. The right to protest or gather is not allowed.
This is a clear violation of your liberty to oppose your government.
Anon, you patronising prick. Nozick, great. And? How would it make it easier to discuss this in terms of one man's views, are you incapable of forming your own?
"Nozick argues that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles"
"Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in a single, private, protective agency which is itself a de facto "state." Thus anarchy may only exist for a limited period before a minimalist state emerges"
What point of that don't you get?
I repeat:
"it results in a single, private, protective agency which is itself a de facto "state.""
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE FUCKING SAYING
For fuck sake.
Oh, yes, but Rothbard, the alleged 'mainstream' libertarian (excuse me while I piss myself laughing that this claim) totally disagrees with Nosick. (Rothbard is a known anrcho-capitalist within the lib spectrum)
What we would appear to have are ancho-capitalists using a minarchist (Nosick) to argue against the very thing that the minarchist is arguing (us) and in turn relying on a known ancho-capitalist (Rothbard) as a mainstream voice of reason who in turn disgrees with the minarchist.
Brilliant!
We have quite clearly stated that all that is being achieved here is the giving of the current powers we resent the state having to a group of individuals, creating in turn individuals that are de facto states. Hence my question, so what's the point? Nothing has been achieved, simply shifted.
Liberty. Liberty is the cornerstone, not property. Property is part of the solution to increase liberty. Otherwise it would be called propertarianism.
Well said.
And I concur with your thoughts, Mr B, that these anarcho capitalist extremists in and out of the LPUK are pretending to be minarchists and moderates, when quite blatantly they are not minarchists.
They explicitly state anarco capitalist and extreme views, and disown any notion of any valid state involvement in anything, ever.
Furthermore, they despise their fellow man and have nil interest in liberty.
For them, one thing and one thing matters and that one thing is private property ownership.
All rights stem from that, apparently, so in other words, if you want liberty and you a) dont own land or property and b) want to have your say in forums that you dont own, you are royally arseholed.
Fuck them. I'm sick of it. And I'm fucking sick of being called a social democrat, when fucking quite fucking clearly I am fucking not a fucking social fucking demo fucking crat. In any way, shape, or form.
"A debating forum, a theatre, a shopping mall, land with access, etc etc etc etc.
Why are people trying to say that we think people have rights to fuck around in peoples' front rooms?"
Because there is no difference between them, or if there is, you haven't explained it.
Why is there a difference?
I grant my cleaning lady access to my house to clean it, not to stage protests. I grant you access to my shopping centre so you can buy stuff, not to stage protests.
What is the difference?
Obo, I thought you believed in Land Value Tax? But that would violate "inalienable" rights to property, if they existed.
What is the difference?
It's a difference of degree. If we're still saying "Read X, you dumbass, then you'll understand :smug:" then try reading The Machinery of Freedom by David D Friedman. He totally trashes the idea of libertarianism as a dogmatic system in which all questions have been answered forever by the statement "Read your contract with the owner of the property"; and comes out in favour of a more nuanced approach.
In his example, most libertarians would agree that, in the absence of a contract between the two parties, firing a LASER beam at someone's front door, or shining a spotlight through his windows in the middle of the night, probably isn't kosher. But obviously some emissions of electromagnetic radiation onto others' property are permissible, otherwise you wouldn't be able to switch the lights on in your own house. The difference is a matter of degree, and that's what's being proposed here.
If all land is privatised in an "inalienable" manner, then anyone who doesn't own land is literally in limbo. There is nowhere he can even stand without having to negotiate for permission from the landowner. Historically, the Irish and Indian Famines act as warnings of the danger of this approach. I'm simply asking for differences in degree to be recognised. We all have a stake in our front rooms being under our total control, because that is the very heart of our private sphere, which we should be free to retreat to without worry at any point. A shopping mall or private park is clearly different to anyone who doesn't live in an utterly black and white world. And anyone that does live in black and white has the problem of working out how much electro-magnetic radiation is too much to send onto someone's property without their permission (unless you really do believe that shining spotlights through people's windows is A-OK, in which case, fair play). And don't take the dodge of saying "Covenant agreement :smug:" as I currently don't have one with my neighbours, and you therefore don't have the luxury of assuming that one will always be in place. I suppose you could say that anything that doesn't damage the other's property is acceptable, but then you've conceded that rude t-shirts, spotlights, and public protests should be allowed.
Richard, great stuff. I have already attempted to explain this to him using the differences between social contracts in differing situations. It's like trying to explain evolution to a evangelical.
Ditto that libertarianism is not an ideological one solution everything's-been-decided dogma.
What you have said is perfectly logical and sensible, but seriously, you might as well go down the local happy clappy and try to talk about the Big Bang.
Thank fuck for that, I was about to lose faith in all humanity and my political creed, when Richard posted to shine a glimmer of hope on us all.
Thank you for dropping by with some rare common sense.
Richard, I'd prefer to not have any taxes. But people who study taxes in far more detail assure me that LVT is the least worst tax, so I like LVT in the same way I'd like the least worst AIDS.
You say that there's a difference in degree, but on what basis is there a difference in degree?
If I have an Anne Summers party in my living room, I'm encouraging people to come into my house and buy stuff from me.
If I have a shop in a mall, I'm encouraging people to come into my shop and buy stuff from me.
In the first case, B&D feel that there is no obligation for me to allow them to hold a protest in my living room, in the second case, they feel that there is an obligation for me to allow them to hold a protest in my shop.
Telling me that there's a different social contract in place may explain it in your mind, but I really can't understand why you feel this is so. What is the difference between the two cases?
Why do I have the right to tell them to fuck off in the first instance, but not in the second?
There you go again. Deliberately twisting it all.
Holding a protest IN a shop, would clearly infringe on the running of the business, and therefore the liberty of the owner - and almost certainly the liberty of those working and shopping there.
Now tell me if the same is true if the protest were outside the shop, or outside the shopping centre, but still on the land owned by Mr 'X'?
You quickly leap to the defence of the owner, disowning any responsibility he may have to wider liberty and rights. For you, there are no wider liberties. You are not interested in the right to protest, the right to speak out against things, the rights for people to combine (Trade Unions), the rights of people to express discontent towards power brokers.
You never write about stuff like that, do you? I wonder why.
For you, property is the be all and end all. Liberty exists in no wider context. There is no balance. If there is, you have no interest in seeking it, merely to dismiss your opponents as weak 'mewling' liberals. Rather than libertarians with wider interests than those that serve a fat cat fat man fat pay check gorging oligarch class.
Forget LPUK being 'minarchist'. That's bollocks, and even you know it. It is far closer to your politics than it is to the politics of the minarchist. Good luck to you.
I get a sense that Obo and others are unwilling to compromise on principles like this, because they quite reasonably worry that compromise would be the start of a slippery slope. A slope that leads all the way to "social democracy" and to the even darker tyrannies beyond.
Political systems do tend to creep to the left, with more power for the government and less for individuals. The process is typically a gradual erosion, as in Fabianist Britain and progressive America.
Presumably, Obo's worry is that taking away some property owner's rights in some cases would lead to others, and eventually we would be back to where we are now. So he sets a fixed black and white principle and refuses to budge.
And yet, here we talk about a way in which the same sort of tyranny could arise without compromising that principle. Own most of the property, or form a cartel with others who do, and you can dictate the rules. It seems the principle is not enough in itself.
This is important stuff, and I think we need a logical and consistent way to determine which rights are inalienable, i.e. not removable by a property owner. Obo says these are the right to property and the non-aggression principle, but the contradiction exposed above suggests that there are a few more.
The challenge is to determine what these rights are, in such a way that some bearded Guardianista cannot later come along and add a few more "inalienable rights" in the service of a "progressive" left-wing tyranny.
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you all.
JD: So, if you hold the protest in the mall, rather than in the shop: I give you access to this mall so that you can get to the shops, not so you hold a protest, what's the difference?
I give you access to the parking lot so that you can park conveniently while you go to the shops not so you can hold a protest, what's the difference?
And it it's just a random piece of land, I probably don't give you access to it. If it's a park, I very generously give you access to so that you can enjoy the reasonable use of it without expecting anything in return. Is it not extremely rude of you to abuse my generosity by doing something I don't want you to do?
"You never write about stuff like that, do you? I wonder why."
I can't see how someone who reads my blog can say something like I am "not interested in the right to protest, the right to speak out against things, [snip] the rights of people to express discontent towards power brokers". Do I not protest, do I not speak out against things, do I not express discontent against power brokers?
You really have the wrong end of the stick, you two. When Tom Miller or Luke Akehurst or Tom Harris trumpet the "achievements" of Labour on their blog, I go and have a pop at them. Sometimes they approve my comments, sometimes they do not. If they do, hurrah. If they don't, well, I know they've read my comment and I've had my say. If they don't and I feel strongly enough about it or if I want to expand on what I said, I'll fisk them on my blog. Job done. My protest has been made. They have had their say. Freedom of speech for them and for me has been maintained.
But to say I don't ever write about these things is a curious attack: the reason for my blogging at all is that it's my protest, it's me speaking out against things and expressing my discontent with power brokers. What makes you think I don't think that is a vital freedom?
I don't write about unions because they don't interest me. What interests me is that the government stops micromanaging my life and I can just get along with it.
If you want to form a union, go for it. Libertarians are quite cool about freedom of association. But equally, because YOU want to form a union, don't fucking MAKE me join it and don't expect that I will negotiate with it. Don't expect that I HAVE to write about it. I don't believe in unionisation, I don't believe in collective bargaining. I don't think collective bargaining reflects the aspirations of the individual, I think it reflects the aspirations of the person heading up the union. In essence, I believe that collective bargaining can very, very easily be twisted away from being about a mutually beneficient transaction into a power play, like the BA strike or the strikes of the 70's. But if you want to form a union and your employer finds it more convenient to negotiate with them, that's his look out. I wouldn't do it, because I don't believe in collective bargaining. I believe in individuals.
I suppose that makes me some kind of neo-Nazi as well?
Vladimir, I cannot see any circumstances under which an sufficiently small group would own all the property (either classical liberal or modern brick and mortar definitions) - and remember, in order for them to buy it all, every single person would have had to found it a mutually beneficient transaction to sell all their stuff to this group. They would have had to factor in the consequences of their decision into the purchase price. But also remember how much money this small group would need, just to buy up a relatively small country like the UK. The 1000 richest people in this country, if they pooled their resources, couldn't buy London, never mind the rest of the country. If the 1000 richest businesses in the UK pooled their resources, they couldn't buy London and their businesses would collapse immediately after any attempt because of the damage to their cash flow.
So I consider this possibility of this even more remote than an anarchist society, something I consider impossible.
But if it happened, would such a society be libertarian any more? I don't think it would be. It would be a fairly profound failure of human nature to sell yourself into possible permanent slavery for the sake of a small pile of cash. I wouldn't and I don't think many people would. I have more faith in people than you do.
Obo, if you can't see a difference in degree between a living room and a shopping mall, then there's little point continuing this discussion. I also notice you didn't address any of my other points. I suspect we're about to join a game of "Nuh-uh, I asked you first" question-tag, so for the sake of argument I will state that the concrete difference between a living room and a shopping mall is that gaining access to a private house almost always requires that you identify yourself to the homeowner before he physically grants you access, whereas the doors of a shopping mall almost always open automatically.
Now please explain to me the concrete differences between shining LASER beams, spotlights, and light bulbs onto other people's property.
The reason I raised the point about LVT was that some people seem to think the world is sometimes black and white, and sometimes nuanced, even in the same area. If it's acceptable to say "You may only enclose land as long as you pay a tax to the government for the privilege", why is it suddenly unacceptable to say "you may only enclose land if you recognise that the people on it have certain rights"?
Vladimir, on the "slippery slope" principle, I actually think that the vast majority of people's objections to private property rights rest on an unfair distribution of property in land and natural resources. "Compromising" on this principle therefore STOPS a slippery slide towards further restrictions of private property rights.
And Obo, the 1000 richest people in Britain ALREADY own London! That's what makes them so rich! Good grief.
Richard, I struggle to answer every aspect of every comment because of the 4K restriction to comments. So, I'll work from the top:
I don't agree with the identification restriction. My cleaner is a commercial enterprise and I don't know who they're going to send. They also have the keys to my home, so they can enter when I'm not there. Similarly, my gardening service doesn't identify themselves when trespassing on my property. Nor do my window cleaners. So, in my personal case, I have no identification requirement to let people enter my property for a purpose I deem reasonable. Similarly, I have no identification requirement to people entering my shopping centre because they are coming there to shop.
I'm not really sure about how lasers would differ from nuisance noise. Presumably such matters would be a matter for the police? Or you could close the curtains?
I don't think that it's fair to enclose land in exchange for paying tax. But people who study tax (Mark Wadsworth) have made a reasonably compelling case to me that land is the least bad thing to tax, whether it's enclosed or not. So if you accept that there are things that need to be paid for out of a common fund, then the least disruptive way of collecting that money is what I would support.
The 1000 richest people own London? So the people I know in London who own their own homes don't actually own them? The millions of people who own shares in property companies, property unit trusts or via their pensions don't have any share in this?
In the seemingly unlikely event that Libertarians manage to agree with each other to the point where the gain power, may I ask who is going to enforce these rights in practice, on what authority, and what will be the consequences of contravening them?
Mr Rob: That would be an ecumenical matter.
PS What rights are you talking about?
Obo: The rights you were talking about.
Please one of you explain...gwan, gwan, gwan, gwan, gwan, gwan, gwan, gwan GWAN!
Property rights would be enforced by the justice system, in whatever form it may take.
Post a Comment