The question is not so much whether one is "anti-liberty" and more what one thinks constitutes liberty. Anarcho-socialists might consider wage labor not much better than slavery. They may be wrong in their analysis, but the core problem remains that "freedom" or "liberty" is a fundamentally contested term. Most people have their intuitions about what liberty means, but few have a systematic approach. I myself find Kant's notion of "liberty as duty", to put it very briefly, quite compelling. This is, presumably, quite a different basis than the one from which classical libertarians argue. — Echarmion
This is, however, fundamentally a question of efficiency, not about knowledge. The libertarian approach is not that we should make use of market-based mechanism where those are most efficient, but that an approach based on individual self-interests is the right one - and the only right one - for all circumstances. — Echarmion
But this example is extremely simplistic. We live in a capitalist society with significant division of labor. We are simply not self sustaining farmers, and we very likely don't want to be. And even if that example were at all applicable to a modern society, it leaves out all the complications. What if, in order to improve my yields, I divert a river that happens to flow across my land. Or use pesticides with significant effects on neighbors? There are all sorts of scenarios where burdens and profits fall apart. And I will repeat that if I act solely according to pragmatic self-interest, I will try to make it so that the burdens of my actions fall on others. — Echarmion
While the structure of this argument is logically sound, you haven't provided much of any justification for all the premises on the way. The premises you are setting up are the core points of debate where libertarianism is concerned. — Echarmion
Is a system of private ownership and non-aggression flawed? Yes, but not uniquely so. Whatever problems a libertarian world might face will also plague the non-libertarian alternative — Virgo Avalytikh
What you’ll observe elementally is a return to the distant past. They drive horses and buggies, wear modest attire and live in farms or plain houses. They like to live off the land. They are a type of cloistered sect (with exceptions), as indifferent to modernity, technology and social media as is possible. — Reshuffle
It's interesting: I have no idea whether your historical claim about the State being a critical development in wrenching us up out of a state of nature is true. But I do know that Chomsky would take serious issue with it. I believe he locked horns with Pinker on just this issue. — Virgo Avalytikh
Let's talk about something else. — Bitter Crank
One may conclude, having levelled one such objection, that the legitimacy or at least the necessity of the State, or of collective ownership, is thereby vindicated. — Virgo Avalytikh
perhaps there really are problems which would plague a system of private ownership and non-aggression, and that it would be genuinely extremely difficult to deal with the problem from within that system. — Virgo Avalytikh
I was wondering if you could explain in your own words how and why a State wouldn’t be formed to protect property rights and to set up markets. Is there still international trade under this system? — Noah Te Stroete
think the "non-aggression principle" has been shown to be deeply incompatible with the right to private property. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the State violates the non-aggression principle by its very nature (and I believe that it does, contra Nozick), then it is illegitimate no matter what size it is, or what services it provides. — Virgo Avalytikh
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. — Wikipedia
Non-violence and non-aggression is a relatively unstable, artificially constructed situation. It should never be considered "natural". — alcontali
Political philosophy is not my thing, but I just thought I'd bring that up, because anyone who's seriously researched these two principles, ought to have come across this notion. To declare ownership is an act of aggression. Libertarians cloud this issue, creating the illusion that we naturally own things. In reality we are born without private property. We are born with nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is exactly the problem. A "right", such as the right to property, is something bestowed on a person from the State. It is a "service" provided by the state. If the State, by its very existence violates the non-aggression principle, and therefore ought to be dissolved because of this, then everything given by the State, including the right to own property will be lost with the dissolution of the State. — Metaphysician Undercover
Notice that a right only exists in relation to some sort of convention. It is not a property of a person, but of that convention. Further to this, the right to own property is a right which by its very nature requires enforcement, acts of aggression, because we are born with nothing. Perhaps you might avoid the necessity of force, by rewording the "right", as the right to give property, or sell property, but this implies that someone already owns the property which would be given or sold. Since we are born with nothing, we cannot get into the circle of ownership without acts of aggression. — Metaphysician Undercover
Is it aggressive to lock your doors so that you can keep all of your possessions and your home? Do we own our bodies? According to you the State has the power to decide what we can or can't do with our bodies.To declare ownership is an act of aggression. Libertarians cloud this issue, creating the illusion that we naturally own things. In reality we are born without private property. We are born with nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover
I am not sure that this really is a libertarian commitment … it depends on what you mean by ‘self-interest’. If you simply mean that we all always act in accordance with our highest want at any given moment, what Ludwig von Mises would call the ‘rationality axiom’, then yes indeed. But this is not a normative judgement. It’s simply a praxeological truth. But if you mean ‘self-interest’ in the sense that we shouldn’t give a care to the sick and suffering, but rather horde what we have for ourselves, then by no means. Nothing in the libertarian position demands such a commitment. Libertarianism doesn’t tell anybody how to live, or what to do with the resources at their disposal, so long as it is non-aggressive. — Virgo Avalytikh
Both my examples were simplistic (both the collective ownership and private ownership one), because they are illustrative of a principle. The main cases I can think of in which what I do with my private property imposes unreasonable costs on others is when I am acting aggressively, invading the property of others in some way. — Virgo Avalytikh
If I pump out dangerous toxins which affect your health or pollute a river which runs outwith the boundaries of my land, then of course I must give compensation. So the non-aggression principle, if employed, covers many such cases. — Virgo Avalytikh
As I said, the fact that private-property owners tend to be the immediate bearers of the costs and benefits of what they do (assuming, of course, that they are not criminal aggressors) is true. It is only a tendency, but it really is a tendency. That establishing private property rights is an effective solution to the tragedy of the commons problem is well known. — Virgo Avalytikh
Well, I think I have laid out some plausible reasons for thinking that market failure is a relative rarity in a system of private property, and is implicit in the entire political process (as well as in any collective decision-making process). The force of this observation can easily be underestimated, but I believe that it constitutes a powerful libertarian defence. — Virgo Avalytikh
If we were to redistribute all resources and wealth on the planet every person would end up being in poverty. Google the GDP per capita of the world. It's $17,300, and much off that isnt cash, its locked up commodities and property. — Harry Hindu
Nature is just as responsible for producing peaceful cooperation as it is for animalistic aggression — Virgo Avalytikh
Now that Big Brother is watching you, and prevents you from ambushing, attacking, and violently confiscating stuff from weaker-looking suckers, trade can resume again. — alcontali
This discussion of the theoretical of universal collective vs. private ownership is just that, theoretical. Practical implementation is much more complex and messier than the discussion seems to take into account. Neither side is in reality doable, but I still think the discussion is worthwhile to try to solve the systemic problems of the status quo. This is my opinion. — Noah Te Stroete
A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. Those are the only powers a government should have. — Harry Hindu
A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. — Harry Hindu
Those are the only powers a government should have. — Harry Hindu
If you want to quibble, just Google "how much money would everyone in the world have if it was divided equally".
It's been discussed elsewhere on the internet, so you'll find plenty of links. But you won't find much of a difference in the number I provided. Everyone in the world will still end up in poverty. — Harry Hindu
It seems obvious to me that I own what I worked to get, where "worked" doesn't entail stealing from others, or oppressing others, rather it entails providing a service or product to the rest of society that you are part of. — Harry Hindu
The number I found was 34.000. Having 34.000 dollars in assets is not "poverty" according to any definition I am aware of. It's also for every single person, not household assets. For the vast majority of the population, that would be significant wealth. — Echarmion
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.