If we compare Nozick with Chomsky, then Nozick sets out to make the case for minarchism in the form that trained philosophers go about in making the case for anything, but Chomsky doesn't have this background and may not have realized that anyone expected this of him. — Walter B
I am not sure that this is the case. While libertarians do indeed hold to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, they are not simply taken as self-evident axioms. Rothbard, for instance, argues for self-ownership from the impossibility or arbitrariness of the alternatives. One alternative would be that one part of humanity begins by owning another part of humanity, and the other would be that every person in the world is jointly co-owned by everybody. Rothbard argues that the former is arbitrary, since some members of one and the same natural kind are afforded a 'natural right' that others are not, and he argues that the latter is impossible to implement, for all sorts of reasons which I won't rehearse here. Whatever we make of his arguments, the point is that they are not simply stipulated. — Virgo Avalytikh
Why should it be that when I own someone that I am afforded a natural right? — Walter B
Why not give an account of slavery that is descriptive? Here is an example: when I own slaves it is often against their will. — Walter B
If I take something from you against your will, is that 'theft'? Not necessarily - maybe it was my property, and you had previously stolen it from me. — Virgo Avalytikh
Distinguishing cases of theft from non-theft requires us to have a system of rights in place, and I would suggest that such is also necessary for distinguishing cases of slavery from non-slavery (e.g. employment). — Virgo Avalytikh
It doesn't seem that this is necessarily true. If I say that I own someone, then it could be meant that I have engaged in brute force against that person so that they are under my control. There is no need to invoke property rights to make sense of the statement that I own someone else. — Walter B
To say that I "stole" an item from you can mean that I have taken something without informing anyone of my action. No need to invoke property rights to describe this action either. — Walter B
And why begin with this question? Why not ask the more basic question: are there really such things as natural rights at all? — Walter B
I thought it was clear that I was trying to ask for a politically neutral description of slavery that anyone from any political background can agree with. A definition of slavery that is purely descriptive is not necessary, however, since leftists have their own starting principle that hierarchies that find their basis in brute force are illegitimate. Since most have an intuitive believe that actions that justify themselves by brute force are illegitimate, then slavery may be rejected simply based on how the enslaved remains a slave by the slaver. This is why anyone who embraces the non-aggression principle will also reject slavery without having to know the definition of slavery; so even right-libertarians can reject slavery without having to debate the nature of property with the left-libertarian. This is why I find it strange that you think that a definition is truly necessary here. — Walter B
It looks like you think that if property rights don't exist, then we can't make sense of statements like "he stole my purse." I already noted that these statements can be made sense of without aligning oneself to any political position. — Walter B
You must understand that definitions that are not politically neutral are not going to be accepted by your political opponent and they will charge you with begging the question. If you are debating the definition of property, and your definition of property is biased in favor of individualism, will the left-libertarian agree with you or will he challenge your definition as biased against him? — Walter B
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.