Instead of making it complex, I thought I'd approach this discussion as simply and openly as possible. So I ask one simple question, and invite discussion.
Is to be a libertarian, to solely be a champion of private property rights? If so, why, if not, why not?
From what I have observed of debate amongst libertarian bloggers and LPUK members, the vast majority appear to see libertarianism as being first and foremost a political creed that primarily advocates rights and liberties entirely connected to the ownership of property and land.
Other rights fall secondary to this consideration.
This appears to be a primarily right wing libertarian view, bordering on the anarcho-capitalistic. I find it odd, as libertarianism is more diverse a philosophy than that, and the position is not cut and dried, as many seem to think.
I invite genuine debate, not a flame war or abuse. I know that many libertarians and LPUK members despise us or have contempt for us. This will be for various reasons, though our perspective on libertarianism will be one of them, for some.
Well, I guess we'll have to accept this level of contempt and hostility, but setting that aside, let's talk about the subject header.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Is libertarianism about private property rights?
Posted by John Demetriou at 03:26
Labels: anarchism, left libertarian, libertarianism, LPUK, private property rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I find it hard to believe that anyone could answer "yes" to the question (at least, as clarified in your second paragraph). Of course Libertarianism is not solely about being a champion of private property rights, important though those are.
A libertarian society would have criminal as well as civil law. Some crimes (theft, fraud) may be about property rights but others (murder, rape) are not.
Arguably "You shall not initiate force or fraud" is the only law actually necessary for a libertarian society, but in practice that would leave too much discretion to the judges. Indoctrinated as modern Britons have been, I can imagine a judge defining "force" so broadly as to encompass Harriet Harman levels of busy-bodying. Does a smoker in a public place, for example, "force" others to inhale his beloved carcinogens? Judges can be creative in shaping the law to their prejudices, so some more precise constitutional limits would be needed and (of course) there would be scope for disagreement as to where they would lie.
Right now, there is so much state interference in the miniutiae of British life that almost any sensible human can claim to be libertarian by comparison with our rulers. If the tide of repression is turned, many will turn from "libertarian" to "conservative" at the point when they think enough laws have been repealed. Still others will find themselves statists again, when they feel repeals have gone too far!
Libertarianism is about having a reasonable minimum of laws, on Montesquieu's principle that "when it is not necessary to make a law, it is necessary NOT to make a law". We can (and as a society we do) argue over what laws are "necessary", but we certainly need them on more subjects than property rights.
What do you think about trade unionism in this context? What laws do you think there should be on collective bargaining, and do you think they (and other forms of collective action) have a part to play in a libertarian society?
Mr Paine makes much sense.
Even anarcho-capitalists don't believe that it's solely about championing property rights. Your being on my property does not give me the right to kill you or harm you or steal from you. (Self-defence is a totally different matter, obviously!)
This is why I don't think a rich anarcho-capitalist libertarian who owned an entire town (or whatever) would be a problem - he would still respect your (negative) rights of freedom of speech, association and anything else and as long as you caused him no harm, there probably wouldn't be any conflict about it, even if you strayed into positive rights behaviour.
But if you look at the large property owners in this country, especially the "shadowy individuals" that you seem to feel most aggrieved about, how many of them are anarcho-capitalists? Probably none. Yet their behaviour as Tories, LibDems, Labourites or whatever in a culture of social democracy is what you use a reason to argue against the behaviour of anarcho-capitalists.
In a different culture, people behave differently, which is why, for instance, the British are regarded as animals when it comes to booze, whereas the continental Europeans are regarded as extremely agreeable.
In America, making a lot of money is something to be admired and aspired to, in the UK it's something to be sneered at and vilified for.
Similarly, I think that in an anarcho-capitalist society, property owners would be much more tolerant of the non-property rights of others and others would be much more tolerant of the property rights of the owners.
And as an aside, I think it's pretty fucking cheeky of you to try to play the sympathy card about how "many libertarians and LPUK members" feel about you when you storm about like bulls in a china shop, slapping your dicks on the table and telling everyone else how they're wrong and you're right. What the fuck did you think was going to happen?
People don't despise you or have contempt for you because of your arguments, they despise you or have contempt for you because you behave like a pair of arrogant, intolerant (and I choose the word advisedly, knowing full well that you're going to have something to say about it), self-righteous cocks.
In rights based libertarianism derived from the writings of Locke all other rights flow from the property right. Rights to Life, liberty, property...all derive from the basic ownership of self. It is quite a strong justification for libertarianism with few internal contradictions. Saying it is a "right wing" libertarianism is a bit glib I think. It isn't based on anything resembling conservatism and comes in a wide variety of different forms.
Other justifications for libertarian belief include consequentialism (eg Hayeck), utilitarianism (eg Mill), and even types of social contract. There are schools of libertarian thought which do not accept absolute ownership of land (geolibertarianism) and others which go even further in terms of ownership.
Of course voluntary collective action has a place to play in any human society- some might say more of a place in a society where property rights are accepted, since otherwise collective action might be forced. But what you ultimately believe is up to you.
JD
About your comment regarding trade unions. Libertarianism doesnt exclude collectivism. What it does exclude is forced collectivism. As in "If you want to practice this trade or work here, you MUST join the x union"
Thats bullshit.
Sure, anyone that wants to should be able to get together, form a group, set internal standards, even collect fees from members if you want. The employer should not however be forced into buying labour from your group. Maybe the unorganised are cheaper. Maybe they are not as good. Maybe theyre better or easier to fire. Whatever. The person or company paying the money should be able to choose. Just like the person selling his or her labour should not be forced to join.
Interesting posts.
Unionism is a very interesting one, and I see that people who have posted have mirrored the Ron Paul line on the matter.
I can't disagree, although you do realise that there are awkward facts here. If employers can sack off an entire workforce for threatening to strike, and employ new people, then that would effectively nullify the entire point and purpose to the union.
There are always more applicants to posts than vacancies. I'd imagine that mass sackings would bring about huge interest it the vacant positions.
The result would be shite conditions and pay for workers. People have to eat and pay their bills, so people are generally willing to do all sorts to keep that going. The employer has a vast upper hand,
Obo says that we run about like self righteous cocks pissing people off. This is news to me. As far as I'm aware, I blog about politics and I debate with people, albeit with a certain degree of bumptiousness.
I didn't realise this was a thing. Or does this happen a lot when you disagree with people and shake things up a bit?
Oh dear. What can I say. Sorry?
John,
My favourite definition of libertarianism is 2 words: "freedom from" - the ability to live your life free from any form of forced collectivist behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all (consequentialism - Hayek). That said you cannot have such freedoms unless they come from somewhere and that somewhere is from property rights - this extends beyond mere shiny baubles collected through your toil and hard work - this extends to how you conduct yourself and how you treat your body.
That said I believe there are a few caveats:
1. I actually really think their is some stock in the geolibertarian arguement; no one to my knowledge is capable of creating matter - merely altering it in some way temporally or spatially, ergo to some extent land cannot belong to anyone, which, if we were to track back ownership to year dot we would probably carve out a history of disenfranchisement and need to repatriate land to a dozen peoples. This is why a land value tax (and in my case I espouse a intellectual property value tax also for similar reasons above) is seen at least as a justifiable taxation on others.
That said that doesn't remove the land owners right to their property, merely their occupancy is at the expense of others and some compensation is due from a finite resource; their right to do as they will with it is never in doubt though.
Echoing the Clown's point though their is a core of negative rights which every individual which balances out the right to property as it extends from said property rights.
I dont really understand what you are suggesting here; it is not right wing to be an advocate of property rights - they are intrinsic!
I like to think of myself as LIBERTARIAN but if anyone comes a Knocking on my door expecting a good time without a crate of beer in their arms and a couple of spliffs in their pocket they can FUCK OFF... NO LIGHT WEIGHTS..
My GAFF my RULES....
There is no agreement in the broad sweep of libertarianism as to what constitutes property, even John Locke has his proviso (...leave as much as good for others...), it's Rothbard+ with the absolute property rights, but there are three main positions:
1) AnCap: Property is absolute, you mix your labour or acquire by exchange it is yours in perpetuity.
2) Mutualist: Property consists of your possessions, the things you are currently putting to productive use, IE: the "methods of production"+
3) AnCom: Property is theft, the original anarchist position.
The Georgeists fit into the mix a little awkwardly, it's strange to single out ONLY land as special, really this has to do with the obvious scarcity of land, but scarcity is not unique to land.
Note also that there is a growing trend even amongst "right" libertarians AGAINST intellectual property laws, people are being persuaded largely by the growing consequentialist case on this it seems.
"This is news to me."
I'm not surprised. You strike me as someone who would be amazed that their "harmless bumptiousness" might cause offence.
I bet you're an absolute barrel of laughs at a party as well.
I know this has nowt to do with the article, but am I the only person who thinks Tim Minchin is a total cunt?
CJH
What makes you say that, Obo?
Got a feeling you wouldn't like me IRL?
Oh, no. Please don't say its true...
Obo, you crack me up. A person who's entire blog is about being Obnxious having a go at others for being arrogant. Brilliant. In fact, most of the A-C bunch are set up as being arrogant fuck em all ists, which is apparently fine for them but not us. Hmm, interesting.
It's not may fault that my cock is so massive that I write my blog with it.
And how are we offensive?
And what the fuck is offence? Is that not allowed?
And surely you mean offense?
CJH, yeah he's a cunt (oh, I do so hope the little wanker desn't read this so he isn't 'offended'). Lady B hates him. Although to be fair the tosser does where less make-up than the clown.
J Demetriou said:
"I can't disagree, although you do realise that there are awkward facts here. If employers can sack off an entire workforce for threatening to strike, and employ new people, then that would effectively nullify the entire point and purpose to the union.
There are always more applicants to posts than vacancies. I'd imagine that mass sackings would bring about huge interest it the vacant positions.
The result would be shite conditions and pay for workers. People have to eat and pay their bills, so people are generally willing to do all sorts to keep that going. The employer has a vast upper hand,"
I have to disagree. If the work is completely unskilled then yes, the employer can sack the whole workforce and employ a new bunch, but the employer will still lose days if not weeks of work-time in getting the new people in as well as having the hassle of interviews, advertising, and all of that malarkey.
If the work is skilled, then he has all the above problems plus additional time to train the new recruits. He could be looking at weeks of work being lost (work that for the most part, he is still paying for). It'd be easier than it is now, but it would still be costly.
Just to give you an idea, I used to work for Sainsbury's about 10 years ago and they had a reasonably high staff turnover rate. They launched a massive initiative to slow it down because they reckoned the cost to recruit and train a single member of staff (taking into account the time that the person doing the training is unavailable for other work, the wages paid to the employee during the training, the risk of mistakes being made, etc) was around £3,000 per person. If that's how much it costs to train someone to work in a supermarket (hardly rocket science), how much would it cost to train someone to do something complex?
I think the employer should be able to sack the whole workforce if they really want to. Any such movement would be incredibly costly and would earn them an awful lot of negative PR, so the union would have to be really taking the piss before any sensible company would do it - but it should still be available as an option (because let's face it, some of the unions are massively taking the piss).
"There are always more applicants to posts than vacancies"
There weren't in the '60s. Back then, in many industries, the reverse was true.
"If the work is completely unskilled then yes, the employer can sack the whole workforce and employ a new bunch, but the employer will still lose days if not weeks of work-time in getting the new people in as well as having the hassle of interviews, advertising, and all of that malarkey.
If the work is skilled, then he has all the above problems plus additional time to train the new recruits."
Possibly true in some industries, but not for many. Consider this: training is training, but most training is 'on the job' stuff and the usual thing people need updating with. Employers want graduates...as I'm sure you know, everyone now has a degree.
I do believe that there are millions of suitable candidates for most jobs now. Especially public sector stuff.
property rights is to Boaty and D as LVT is to Samizdata ;)
As to unions, the point made about staff training is correct, and I would suggest that proper negotiations between (sensible) unions and employers could replace, on a workplace-by-workplace basis whole reams of one-size-fits-all legislation, health and safety, equality and diversity just for starters.
A more interesting point might be a libertarian solution to "you must join to work here" unions. If the employer and the employees agree, who's right is it to tell them no? Certainly not the one guy who turns up for a job but doesn't fancy joining the union, he's perfectly free to seek work elsewhere, after all...
"Obo, you crack me up. A person who's entire blog is about being Obnxious having a go at others for being arrogant. Brilliant."
If you haven't worked out that there's a difference between obnoxiousness and arrogance yet, then I think you'd best give up now.
"In fact, most of the A-C bunch are set up as being arrogant fuck em all ists, which is apparently fine for them but not us. Hmm, interesting."
Nothing like a sweeping generalisation is there? And once again, you're conflating two entirely different things. In much the same way as you despise anarcho-capitalists for the behaviour of social democrats.
"Got a feeling you wouldn't like me IRL?
Oh, no. Please don't say its true..."
I suspect that I could probably stand you in small doses, a bit like a cheap ouzo.
You drink cheap Ouzo? You loser.
Only the finest Zivania here.
For Fuck Sake. OED -
Obnoxious: Very annoying or objectionable; offensive or odious
Arrogant:Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance
So Mr 'Annoyingly objectionable and offensive' the Clown, your claim is a tad pathetic.
Yes, we do have a sense of self-worth, and? I wouldn't say it was overbearing at all, simply tongue in cheek. You take it all so seriously don't you. Do you honestly think that I beleive I have a 4 foot cock and am the only correct person in the world? If you do then you need to take a break from all this and have a holiday, sorry, vacation.
"you despise anarcho-capitalists for the behaviour of social democrats"
That makes no sense at all, what the fuck does that mean? I hate anarcho-capitalists because of what social-democrats get up to? Eh?
Please stop taking such offence at everything and simply get on with being incredibly offensive. Or obnoxious. Take that holiday Obo.
Ladies, please. I check this blog regularly (twice in two years, that's how good it is) and both times it's been a bitch-fest with the Clown. If I wanted pantomime I'd head up to St James' Street and shout "poofters!".
Seeing as this hardly happens, I suggest you read more often, it's far better than most of the shit out there Gands.
Obo likes picking a fight, what can I say. Oh, and it's handbags, nothing more.
It's plainly just homo-erotic tension, I suggest you settle your differences in a huge theatrical three-way gang-bang.
Cunts. xxx
LIke using mime?
nice post. thanks.
"I hate anarcho-capitalists because of what social-democrats get up to? Eh?"
You pre-judge the behaviour of anarcho-capitalists based on the behaviour of social democrats, yes.
The norms of an anarcho-capitalist society would be completely different from the norms of a social democracy, yet you argue that people would continue to behave in exactly the same way.
Post a Comment