Help cure my libertarian ideals

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would guess that he did think he was doing more good than harm when he shot this man, even if it was simply because he thought he was doing society a favor by eliminating one of "them".

I wonder whether the authorities would have been so quick to arrest the officer if the Michael Brown, Eric Garner and other cases had not garnered so much attention. I would hope so, given that incredible video (and I'm pretty sure, Prim, that that is the taser), but I tend to doubt it. We'll never know.

[Túrin Turambar]

If someone is looking for a philosophical system that will provide guidance for the 'correct' public policy decision in every case, they will end up stymied. I have some sympathy with libertarians - I am involved with a couple of classical liberal organisations, I have written quite a bit on the works of F. A. Hayek, and I am actually going to Sydney next month as a guest of the Centre for Independent Studies - but I have no illusions that the overwhelming majority of the business of government in a first-world country these days involves a lot of small decisions on how to allocate the resources available to it in the way that will do the most good. Which in itself can be subjective on a case-by-case basis, even among those in ideological harmony. As our former Prime Minister the late Gough Whitlam famously quipped when accused of abandoning Labor ideals in favour of winning votes, the impotent are indeed pure.

That said, I have always rejected political cynicism. At least until someone shows me a better system that actually works.

[yovargas]

If someone is looking for a philosophical system that will provide guidance for the 'correct' public policy decision in every case, they will end up stymied.

While that would be very nice to have, I wouldn't exactly say this is what I'm looking for. I notice that so far nobody has commented specifically on the "Non-Aggression Principle". That's what this is really about for me. I'd like for somebody somewhere to look at the NAP and say "this is not a good stance because..." and end that statement in a way that I couldn't break down to "...because sometimes I want my will to be imposed on others". Until I see somebody convincingly do that, I don't see how I could see violations of the NAP as a basically immoral thing.

[axordil]

As Blake said, one law for the lion and the lamb is oppression. (Feel free to assign identities there as needed )

That's a terrible analogy.

It's poetry, not logic, silly.

[axordil]

Now, if you insist on logic...

The problems with the NAP--and with most overarching precepts of its ilk--are that they depend on something that doesn't exist: consensus on the definitions of the terms they employ as "given."

"Legitimately acquired property" is a hugely question-begging concept, right off the bat. Disagreements about what property is, what the legitimate means are for acquiring it are, and whether some piece of property was acquired via those means have arguably killed and continue to kill more people than anything else in human history.

[yovargas]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that the notion that perfect consensus is unattainable does not negate a principle's value. We in this country have a damn hard coming to a consensus on anything but there are many broadly accepted principles that have contributed to the long-term success of this country. As a society we generally value democracy, for example, even if we'll never all agree on how to best implement that. A better example, though, might be freedom of speech, something which has very broad, very principle-based support even though sometimes there is controversy over what "speech" might even mean. Is money speech?? I don't know, don't ask me! But despite disagreements and controversies and the occasional attempts to violate it, we still as a country hold strongly to free speech as a principle to live by and defend and (I believe) we are a better country for that.

I would say much the same for the idea of property. Yes, absolutely, there are lots of difficult and problematic and controversial aspects of the notion of "legitimate property" but nonetheless we as a society seem pretty firmly set on the notion that the TV in my living room is, and should be, mine and mine alone because I did honest work to earn it. Peaceful consensus on that has lead to a more stable, succesful, and peaceful society than the alternatives which is the hallmark of a good principle.

[axordil]

But even getting to *that* point *wasn't* a peaceful process. And the stability, success and peace come with a price: to a great extent we've outsourced a lot of chaos, failure and conflict to buy them. That's not a brand new development either.

[yovargas]

That doesn't really negate that having those principles has ultimately been a positive for our society though, does it? I mean, that the road to a peaceful and moral society has been, and will continue to be, a really damn rough ride doesn't mean it's one worth going down, right?

[axordil]

That remains an open question. But there is no moral code that can't be twisted to serve those who desire power above all else...and an awful lot of people depend on property that was acquired through means its hard to call legitimate, including anyone of European descent in the Americas or other former colonies. "If I can pry it up, it wasn't nailed down" comes to mind as the historical measure of legitimacy. For us to say, "okay, yeah, all that stuff happened and we took over few continents' worth of land and resources, but NOW we're going to start applying the NAP, which conveniently preserves the status quo we created via centuries of slavery, theft, deceit, mass murder and pillage" does not strike me as the most ethical of approaches in any case. But the NAP isn't special in that regard: the entire body of Western law and concept of government is geared toward protecting them what got theirs already.

I'm as much in favor of avoiding the use of force or coercion, on an individual level or a societal level, as anyone. Practically speaking, though, I don't see it becoming a yes or no issue, not with human beings involved. The rule of law is on one level the rule of threatened force, the rule of coercion, for those who chafe under it--but life under the law is better than life under naked force in action, which Hobbes aptly described as "nasty, brutish and short." So long as human psychological variation resembles its current state, anyway. If we were moral and ethical enough for the NAP to work, we wouldn't need anyone to spell it out.

I think the choice is usually "how much force?" And the answer should be "as little as needed." If that's zero, hooray. Everyone had a good day.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[yovargas]

Bit disappointed more folks weren't interested in jumping in with their thoughts. It is a bit of an esoteric subject so I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

That remains an open question. But there is no moral code that can't be twisted to serve those who desire power above all else...and an awful lot of people depend on property that was acquired through means its hard to call legitimate, including anyone of European descent in the Americas or other former colonies. "If I can pry it up, it wasn't nailed down" comes to mind as the historical measure of legitimacy. For us to say, "okay, yeah, all that stuff happened and we took over few continents' worth of land and resources, but NOW we're going to start applying the NAP, which conveniently preserves the status quo we created via centuries of slavery, theft, deceit, mass murder and pillage" does not strike me as the most ethical of approaches in any case. But the NAP isn't special in that regard: the entire body of Western law and concept of government is geared toward protecting them what got theirs already.

I think this is a great point and it's one that's been on my mind for some time. Of course, the most prominent example of this in our country is our history with blacks. There was a moment there when the civil war had ended and the slaves were finally freed where you could maybe kinda sorta made a real, honest attempt to address the property issue. There was a relatively clean cut case at that point where you could say "these people stole X amount from those people and therefore they must be compensated". Not perfectly or ever truly even (how could anyone ever pay back what was taken from those black slaves) but it could've been a meaningful attempt at solving who "legitimately" owned what. You move one generation away from that and the "who owns what" question already becomes much murky. You move 100 years from that and the question becomes nearly impossible to answer.

And of course, not only did that not happen but instead people just found creative new ways off denying blacks what should have been legitimately theirs. 100 years after slavery and 50 years after Jim Crow, how could anyone hope to determine who owes what to whom? Philosophically, I would absolutely support an honest attempt to do so but I can't imagine how one would try to do so in actual practice (even if there were any political will to do such a thing which obviously there's not).

So what do we do? Say that this traditional notion of "justly earned property" have no real meaning in the real world? Give up on the notion that what you work for should belong to you? I agree that the real world situation is highly problematic but I also don't see many solutions to that actually try to solve the "who really owns what" problem. And I don't think that dealing with a long history of injustice with some more injustice is justifiable.

[Primula Baggins]

It's killing me that I just can't give this really interesting topic the time and thought I would like. I'm just crushed with work/family/tax stuff (my dad's taxes). A week from now, fine. Right now. . . . gah.

[axordil]

I'm not going to pretend to have an answer as to how to fix things, but that has more to do with political reality than ethics.

Have you ever wandered by http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ ? I find some of the discussions there fascinating (and some of the arguments in the comments amusing).

[Frelga]

The best I can offer is to remember that a great deal of substantial property ownership is tied to past violence and injustice, or at least dumb luck. See the privilege thread for more on that. Therefore, there is a duty that comes with the right of property to take care of other people, whether directly or through supporting tax spending on social programs.

That is also the pragmatic course. The alternative, tilting the playing field until all the chips end up in one corner, tends to end in violent redistribution, and that's no fun for anyone.

[yovargas]

The best I can offer is to remember that a great deal of substantial property ownership is tied to past violence and injustice, or at least dumb luck. See the privilege thread for more on that. Therefore, there is a duty that comes with the right of property to take care of other people, whether directly or through supporting tax spending on social programs.

This is...a compelling line of reason. I do note that when you say "there is a duty" what you seem to mean is "there is a forced requirement". Two very different ideas to my mind. You're saying that given the violent past of property, the use of some force to address some current inequalities is just. I do think that this is a point worth considering, definitely, and I will indeed be pondering it, but I think it's important to make it clear that we're talking about force and not moral duty.


ax, that blog looks fascinating, thanks for sharing it! I will definitely be browsing it. I found this really relevant comment in there (on some theory I'm not familiar with) and I wanted to throw it out here to see how people view it:

Imagine that a society had an absolutely flawless record of original appropriation and transfer of property, according to Nozick's entitlement theory. Now suppose that in a particular world--and not one with extreme scarcity of resources--that over time this flawless history of original appropriation and transfer just so happens to leave 15% of people, through no fault of their own, barely above subsistence level, with no hope of ever improving their lot. (This might be unrealistic, but that doesn't matter. You can imagine a situation like this, and that's all I need for my point.) Someone who subscribed to the entitlement theory might say that this situation is unfortunate, but not unjust. Someone committed to social justice would say that the situation sounds not merely unfortunate, but unjust. (Though you might be able to add in details to this story under which the situation would not be unjust.)

What do y'all think? Where would you side? I definitely fall under "unfortunate, but not unjust" but would love to hear other's thoughts.

(Also, Prim: )

[Primula Baggins]

I think Frelga was talking about moral duty.

I know I would be, if I were here posting and not hard at work . I profess a religion that specifically requires giving to the poor, for one thing; the command is direct and explicit and comes straight from Christ himself.

Of course, none of this applies to non-Christians. But an awful lot of people claim that faith who also advocate doing nothing whatsoever to help anyone less well-off than themselves. Maybe they spilled coffee on those parts of the Bible.

[Frelga]

Yov, I suppose "a forced requirement" is a valid definition of "duty" but it is not the same as saying "requirement under the threat of force."

What I am talking about is the concept of Jewish ethics called "tzedakah", justice. Because that's where I go when I have a moral dilemma. It goes back to Leviticus, which gives orphans and widows the right to the corners of the field, for instance, and prohibits holding a worker's wages overnight. In this application, it means a moral duty to a fellow human being.

So to your second question - well, what's the point? What is the definition of "just" in this context?

[yovargas]

Yov, I suppose "a forced requirement" is a valid definition of "duty" but it is not the same as saying "requirement under the threat of force."

I'm not sure I follow. How are they different?

So to your second question - well, what's the point? What is the definition of "just" in this context?

Are you referring to the "flawless history" situation I posted?

[Frelga]

Yeah.

[yovargas]

Hmm. I just wiki'd the term "injustice":

The sense of injustice is a universal human feature, though the exact circumstances considered unjust can vary from culture to culture. While even acts of nature can sometimes arouse the sense of injustice, the sense is usually felt in relation to human action such as misuse, abuse, neglect, or malfeasance that is uncorrected or else sanctioned by a legal system or fellow human beings.

Would you consider a hurricane knocking down your house unjust, as opposed to merely unfortunate? I'm honestly a little surprised at the idea that "even acts of nature can sometimes arouse the sense of injustice" (unless one believes nature is controlled by beings of one form of another; that's another matter). The idea of "injustice" has seemed to me to be clearly tied to the idea that someone somewhere did some bad. The idea of applying it to bad things that are no one's fault strikes me as rather strange.