A note about your text: Be sure to have someone carefully proofread your text before submission. "Home", for instance, is not a verb. It's a noun. We do not "home people". One must use the verb "house" (the verbal form is pronounced 'howze" ).

It's your work, say what you want. But why try to make a silk purse out of a libertarian sow's ear?

In order for your state to effectively insure that citizens are actually free, you either will or have arrived at a quite sizable state. Libertarians by definition are against such a sizable state, are they not? For instance, the state can not wisely choose to remove or not remove children from abusive homes without an apparatus containing trained individuals who are capable of properly assessing the home environment (aka child protection social workers), and a place to take the children immediately after removing them. The government must then have a family court where the due process and justice (protecting everyone's freedom) can be adjudicated. Somehow the social workers need to be trained and certified, and so on.

Our federal government was once very small, and provided really nothing more than defense, a judiciary, internal improvements, a legislature, and some fairly small departments which provided fairly narrowly defined services to citizens, like the US Post Office. Wars, and the necessity of taking care of the soldiers who died or survived, and extreme economic adversity forced the government to become larger and to provide more services.

It seems like a government which citizens expect to protect their freedom will, of necessity, grow larger. More taxes will be required.

Unless a dictatorship or god-ordained royal family has been imposed on a people, there is a social contract between the citizens and the government. The Government is given a portfolio of tasks, the citizens pay for the services through taxation. The taxes we pay is not a fee-for-service payment. At various times, some people get more service than others. The child taken from an abusive home receives a lot more services, probably, than a couple who are excellent parents. This is necessary if the freedom inherent in a person is to be protected. The abused child needs much, the good couple need little to utilize their freedom.

"Taxation", libertarians claim, "is theft", in the same way that anarchists at the other end of the political spectrum follow Proudhon in claiming "all property is theft". It seems like the social contract of the people makes taxation a form of protection rather than theft. We pay taxes so that we are protected from roving gangs, hordes of homeless people, children crippled by abusive parents, people who can't read, write, do arithmetic, identify their hometown on a map, or balance a checkbook. Taxation is capital we invest in our government.

Now, I'll readily agree that our very, very large government is wasting money hand over fist every day, but I'm not willing to agree that this is theft. If we think the government is spending money incompetently, there are avenues through which we can pursue a correction in performance. If we think the government is incompetent and do nothing but bitch and carp about it, we prove ourselves incompetent citizens.

A note about your text: Be sure to have someone carefully proofread your text before submission. "Home", for instance, is not a verb. It's a noun. We do not "home people". One must use the verb "house" (the verbal form is pronounced 'howze" ). — Bitter Crank

See, the thing about being a grammar nazi pedant is that it's a really bad idea to be wrong. The OED has ...

home v.

1. trans. To provide with a home; to find a home for. Freq. in pass

.. with a first citation from 1802.

And it's an especially bad idea to be wrong when pride precedes a fall!

In order for your state to effectively insure that citizens are actually free, — Bitter Crank

Insure in this sense is obsolete usage. The word ensure is greatly preferred to maintain the distinction with what it is that insurance policies do (itself to be distinguished from what assurance policies do). Sorry!

Barry: Yes I noticed that too, but don't worry about it too much. He provided a lot of feedback which is what I was asking for.

Bitter Crank: Thanks for your feedback, I will have a proper read through of it tomorrow and respond then as I just got home and it is getting late here.

Perhaps you address this elsewhere, but I would like to see some engagement with Proudhon.

To put it very simply, property is theft, and taxation is the rent owed. When you fence off your cabbage patch, you deprive the rest of us of the freedom to forage there. There is a tendency to regard property as an absolute right that has no impact on others, but in a crowded world this is not at all the case. Every man's property adds a limitation on my freedom, to the extent, eventually of leaving me no place to be at all. Thus taxation is not theft, but property without taxation is theft.

Thanks, Barry, for the feedback. I don't mind being called a grammar nazi or a pedant -- I've been called far worse things. If somebody asks me to read something and give feedback, I reach for a red pencil. Feedback is good insurance and it helps ensure that we don't stray too far.

And it's an especially bad idea to be wrong when pride precedes a fall! — Barry Etheridge

Indubitably.

The OED is a wonderful resource, but a word's history is not necessarily guidance for current formal usage. Donald Trump used the word "bigged" (meaning 'enlarged'). I had not heard such usage before, but sure enough, the word has a history. Even so, I would red pencil it in a dissertation. Same for "home" used as a verb. (Maybe there is a British/American difference in usage, here...)

This isn't as much a criticism of libertarianism as it is a dismissal of it. I think a libertarian would be content if you acknowledged his views logically flowed if we accepted that property ownership were an inherent right. The fact that you challenge a fundamental premise of libertarianism would likely not bother a libertarian as he would not feel the need to justify a premise that he finds so self evident. This isn't to say he wouldn't rely upon what he considers to be empirical evidence supporting a link between property ownership and the general freedom of the citizenry, but that fundamental attack isn't one I think he'd be terribly worried about.

By analogy, you might get a priest engaged in a debate if you challenged some of the inconsistencies within his belief system, some of which might actually cause him to reconsider some of his theological views. On the other hand, if you presented an outright challenge to the existence of God, I don't think your debate would yield any fruitful results. By the same token, if you admitted to the priest that you believed that all the Catholic theological views logically flowed and were clearly true if there were a god, I think he'd be very content with that admission, even if you then told him that you happened not to believe in God and therefore Catholicism.

This isn't as much a criticism of libertarianism as it is a dismissal of it. — Hanover

Well it certainly questions the assumptions of this brand of libertarianism, but if one is putting freedom at the centre of everything, I think it is important to address the, to me obvious, restrictions on freedom that the walls and fences of private property produce. Not that I am against property myself, (bla bia, tragedy of the commons), but it adds a responsibility to the right, which does not seem to me to be a 'natural' one, for all its commonplace assumption.

The freedom referenced by libertarians is rooted in the right to property ownership. It deals with the right of two people to generally contract to do whatever they want as long as the two consent. I don't know what two people could contract to without reference to some material possession or to its financial value. That is, contracts are about conveyances of things for money generally. If you can't own things, then what is libertarianism at all?

Your reference to "walls and fences" I suppose must be figurative because we're not talking just about real estate and land, but we're questioning the right to property ownership generally. I suppose you can say that you're less free because you can't wear my shirt, but it seems we're both less free if neither can have exclusive rights to our respective shirts. In some academic sense you might claim greater freedom if all things in the world were at the library and free to check out, but in practice it would not be. It's doubtful anyone would produce anything just to have to hand it over to the common good, and, whatever obligations were imposed requiring that we labor to produce for the common good would be what the libertarian means by lack of freedom or coercion.

But, to the particular question of how the libertarian would seek to prove his point that private ownership leads to more freedom, he would likely point to the lack of freedom in nations where private ownership has been forbidden. I'm not suggesting that empirical evidence is necessarily needed for an ideological libertarian (nor for an ideological communist) for them to continue to hold as they do, but I do think there is sufficient empirical evidence for them to credibly argue a link between private ownership and freedom.

The freedom referenced by libertarians is rooted in the right to property ownership. — Hanover

This is the very specific form of libertarianism popular now in the USA, not libertarianism as it has been generally understood. Proudhon was an adherent of a version of the labour theory of value, asserting that rightful property is the product of one's own labour.

While he's famous for claiming that property is (otherwise) theft, he also thought that State ownership of capital was illegitimate, and that's why his is a form of libertarian socialism, in which capital is owned by associations of workers - as for instance, much public housing in continental Europe is.

Your reference to "walls and fences" I suppose must be figurative because... — Hanover

It is both literal and figurative. Please don't expect me to defend sharing our shirts, it would be un-hygenic. I'm not arguing that property should not exist, that literal and figurative walls and fences should not exist. Most of your post is an exposition of the tragedy of the commons.

What I am suggesting is that in principle, my exclusive right to my own home necessarily deprives you of the use of it. This is not an argument against my having exclusive rights to my own home. it is the acknowledgement of a debt incurred to the world that is so deprived.

To take an example opposite and equally silly to your shirt, if I happen to own the whole world, and my property rights are unfettered, then you are in trouble unless I happen to like the cut of your jib. And take your shirt with you on your way out, but don't use any of my launchpads.

This is the very specific form of libertarianism popular now in the USA, not libertarianism as it has been generally understood — mcdoodle

I know there are all sorts of brands of libertarianism, but the one that seems to cause the greatest objection is the one I referenced and the one I assumed was again be objected to. It's the Randian type. And I'm really not advocating for it, although I suspect there's the assumption I would based upon my generally American/conservative viewpoints. I will fully commit to the virtue of private property ownership though, even if I don't accept libertarianism as I've described it.

To take an example opposite and equally silly to your shirt, if I happen to own the whole world, and my property rights are unfettered, then you are in trouble unless I happen to like the cut of your jib. And take your shirt with you on your way out, but don't use any of my launchpads. — unenlightened

The issue then isn't whether there should be property rights generally, but what limitations should be placed on property ownership where others could claim an unfair deprivation of their right to own the property. Your example is not completely far fetched, as it likely was the case at some point in English history I suppose where all the land was owned by a fairly small group of designated landholders. The common man couldn't own land both by law and due to the fact there was no land for sale. It's entirely possible my understanding of ancient English real estate law is wrong, but such a scenario is imaginable.

And so if you look at American law, you'll see what great efforts are made to assure the fair availability of real estate to everyone. It's considered a major violation of one's civil rights to exclude them from owning real estate. The point being that the evil isn't in the deprivation to you by my property ownership, but it's in the complete deprivation to you of owning something similar. It's not unfair you don't get to wear my shirt as long as you get to buy a shirt of your own.

Wow, looks like lots of people are joining in on the feedback. Thanks.

Bitter crank: The problem with the social contract is that it doesn't exist. We don't give our consent to the state first and then receive benefits later. Rather we receive benefits and then our consent is assumed. My point is that the removal of one's property through threat of force, such as threat of prison, is a form of theft. My larger point is that, if we are consequentialists, theft is justified when it has sufficiently good consequences that could not come about without that theft. So I am conceding the point that taxation is theft to the libertarian but arguing that this alone is not enough to condemn it in many circumstances.

Unenlightened: Yes I am assuming one can own property in a sense that produces a moral right to it. I do indeed discuss earlier in the thesis that a good justification for how this works has yet to be shown and that it's possible that property, thus understood, cannot exist and, if so, we can disregard everything I say regarding property. While making that assumption there isn't much to be said in regards to those who think that all property is theft except "no it isn't" which isn't very interesting. But if you can think of an interesting way to engage with that flavor of anarchist, please let me know.

While making that assumption there isn't much to be said in regards to those who think that all property is theft except "no it isn't" which isn't very interesting. But if you can think of an interesting way to engage with that flavor of anarchist, please let me know. — Dan

:D Well I must say I am inclined to present the same argument to those who say "taxation is theft". It seems to me that either position is unjustifiable.

My point is that the removal of one's property through threat of force, such as threat of prison, is a form of theft. — Dan

So I disagree with this, which is the same assumption, differently expressed. Let me see if I can present an outline of an argument. I would suggest that if you as a property owner want me as a non-property owner to respect your right to property, then you are asking me to agree to a social contract. So on the one hand you say it doesn't exist, and on the other you want to impose it. and since (without taxation) it is a contract that benefits property owners exclusively and does nothing or as I argued above actually harms non-owners, there is no reason for us peasants to agree it, except the threat of force that you don't much like when it is applied the other way.

Theft is possible iff property exists, and property exists either in the way that animals have whatever territory they can successfully defend from day to day, or it exists by agreement. But if it only exists in the former sense, then possession is ten points of the law, in which case theft still does not exist, because whatever I take is mine and not yours. So the notion of theft itself depends upon the social contract - the agreement to respect property rights. No one is asked their opinion, or has to sign this contract at birth, and some of us never assent to it. But most of us do, most of the time, until life becomes un-livable under it, and then there is revolution and civil war.

I will be discussing useful, interesting and difficult objections in my thesis and anything you contribute will be referenced appropriately. — Dan

You say that the government's rights depend on the value of its actions. I see a problem with calculating value. If the state's actions result in a single death, how do you evaluate that? I don't see life as having calculable value.

I mean.. considering the massive loss of life that took place in the 20th Century because of political conflict, I think statehood should have forever lost its right to exist. Yet here we are.

My view is more organic. The state is something we inherited from our forebears. It's not like we could engineer it from the wilds of the forest and walk into it. So my focus would be less on justifying the state's authority and looking more at how the state is who we are now. We could be tribal nomads, for instance, sitting around the fire at some oasis pondering legitimacy. Things just didn't happen to go that way.

Unenlightened: You have offered a false dichotomy in saying that property exists either by agreement or in a simple you own what you can defend kind of way. I reject this dichotomy entirely and say that property ownership, if it exists at all, is a relation between a person and an object (or objects) which endows the person with the moral right to make decisions regarding that object. So if I own something, I own it regardless of whether anyone else agrees that I do. If, for example, I own a house and the state decides that people with my particular genetic background are no longer allowed to own houses and take it from me, then this is theft. The property is mine, not by agreement or by my ability to defend it, but by moral right.

Mongrel: I disagree that the value of a life, or in this case the value of protecting a person's freedom to continue living, is not calculable. In the most simple terms we can just weigh the lives that are lost as a result of having a state against those that would be likely lost if we were to not have a state and decide whether we should overthrow the government and become anarchists (though I suspect that such a calculation would not favor anarchism). Further, if what is valuable is freedom, then it seems we should be able to weigh the freedom lost when a person is killed against their will against other types of freedom violations. There should be an answer to the question: how many rapes are as bad as a murder? I have a chapter where I discuss this problem if you would like to read it.

There should be an answer to the question: how many rapes are as bad as a murder? — Dan

What justifies this statement?

The sentence before it. If what is morally valuable is the protection of person's freedom then what is wrong with both of those acts is that they violate a person's freedom but to different extents. Given that it is all the same value (freedom), we should be able to weigh the freedom violated by one act against the freedom violated by another.

Weighing freedom. That's interesting. So you're basically saying that a well-run state results in a net gain in freedom. If the populace tests the state and finds that there is no net gain, a revolution would be warranted.

In a round about sort of way, I think that's actually true. Freedom is a negative concept. It's a lack of restrictions and boundaries. Freedom is meaningful when it's freedom to... Freedom to innovate, freedom to build large-scale, freedom to benefit from the synergy of a diverse crowd.

Those are all benefits of a state. Eh.. I still don't see the quantification thing working in any specific way. I think you could say that subjectively, people sense whether their private potential is being squashed or nurtured. And this will relate to how well the state is unleashing the potential of the people. "What happens to a dream deferred?"

This is all very rightist, you know.

I reject this dichotomy entirely and say that property ownership, if it exists at all, is a relation between a person and an object (or objects) which endows the person with the moral right to make decisions regarding that object. — Dan

Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. I'm the king, so everything morally belongs to me. And such relations are either god-given, or socially given, I can't see how they can be personal in the sense required without dissolving in conflict. But never mind, I've said my piece.

The Libertarian Party in the U.S., at least, is not against taxation, by the way, and by extension neither are most U.S. Libertarian Party members.

The guiding principle of U.S. Libertarian Party libertarians tends to be achieving the minimum government necessary to ensure maximum freedom. Just what that balancing point would be is an open question to Libertarians, who are willing to increase or decrease government on the fly as is practically necessary to achieve that balancing point.

Because of this, you seem to not be addressing actual "practicing" Libertarians, at least of the U.S. party variety. But maybe your intention is not to address them. However, if you want your work to have any impact on Libertarianism in practice, those are the folks you'd need to address. Otherwise you're simply critiquing specific historical texts that do not necessarily have much of a relation to Libertarianism as it is instantiated as a political force.

(And just for context, I was an active Libertarian for many years on county, state and national levels, to a point that I wound up carting around Harry Browne for media appearances during a portion of one of his presidential campaigns. I no longer consider myself a Libertarian in the U.S. party sense--I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. Basically I'm still a libertarian (or Libertarian--I'm using capital "L" to refer to the U.S. party) on moral/social issues, but I'm a very idiocyncratic sort of socialist on economic/governmental structure/etc. issues.)

Mongrel: I would classify freedom as the ability of a person to understand and make decisions and the morally relevant kind of freedom as that over one's own choices, so if you would call that a negative freedom (in the sense of Berlin's negative and positive freedoms) then yes, it is a negative concept.

Yes I agree it is similar to a lot of rights based theories but in a consequentialist way. A consequentialism of rights if you will.

Terrapin: Yes it would be fair to say that I am addressing the philosophical tradition of libertarianism rather than any political party in the U.S. Yes libertarians, even quite hard-line ones, tend to accept that some small amount of government is okay in order to protect freedom (such as through having a police force and an army), my point is that protecting freedom covers rather a lot more than this and that same principle can justify rather big states under the right circumstances.