Taxation Is Robbery
Taxes of all kinds discourage production, writes Frank Chodorov. Man works to satisfy his desires, not to support the state. When the results of his labors are taken from him, whether by brigands or organized society, his inclination is to limit his production to the amount he can keep and enjoy. The indirect tax is a backhanded recognition of the right of the individual to his earnings; the direct tax, however, boldly and unashamedly proclaims the prior right of the state to all property. Private ownership becomes a temporary and revocable stewardship. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (135)
Allen Weingarten
Yes, "every tax rests its case on compulsion." One cannot have government without funding, nor without compulsion. So the issue is not taxation, but whether to have government.
Published: April 17, 2007 8:57 AM
TLWP Sam
Is a reason that poverty is multi-generational is due to the fact that poor families operate as communes? Whereby poor people pool their income to make their dollar go further without particularly begrudging which contributor put more in than the other? Whereby their motto is 'safety in numbers'? The extended family Unit? Was the beginning of wealth was when a person decided to become individualistic which requires greater emphasis on personal responsibity?
Published: April 17, 2007 9:12 AM
Allen
I recall a story about Thoreau having spent some time in jail for not paying his taxes. When asked by his friend "Why do you stay in jail?", Thoreau replies with "Why aren't you in here with me?". It's too bad that more of us do not have the courage to do as Thoreau did.
Published: April 17, 2007 9:20 AM
RogerM
I've written enough posts about this issue in the past for most of you to know that I disagree with the anarchist concept that government is illegit and taxation is robbery, so I won't bore you with more of the same. So let me take a different tack. What if taxation was voluntary? We can get a glimpse of what that might be like by looking at our nonprofit sector.
The Weekly Standard has a great article on nonprofits at www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/525ezjze.asp. Here's part of it: "annual expenditures of all the not-for-profit organizations required to file Form 990 with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service had grown to nearly $1 trillion in 2004. (That's about half what the federal government spends each year, not counting defense.)"
Apparently, Americans have become wealthy enough to give huge amounts to charity. Most of the people who give to charity are very wealthy. So it would probably be the case that the wealthy would control government if taxation were voluntary. But that might not be so bad. In the Dutch Republic where capitalism was birthed, only wealthy people served in top government positions because they weren't paid for their service; it was voluntary and only wealthy people could afford to give the time necessary. The Dutch did extremely well in all forms of freedom and was the wealthiest and most powerful nation in Europe for about 150 years.
Published: April 17, 2007 9:43 AM
RogerM
TLWP: "Is a reason that poverty is multi-generational is due to the fact that poor families operate as communes?"
I think there are numerous causes of poverty and complex interactions, but from my study of poverty, I have concluded that IQ and values are close to the top causes. For all its problems, the book "The Bell Curve" made a point that most critics chose to ignore. Smart people go to the same colleges and marry each others children. The same takes place among those with the lowest IQ's.
The "Bell Curve" admits that only about half of IQ is due to genetics; the other half is due to culture. That's where values come in. If you read the works of cultural economists such as those in "Culture Matters", you'll find that values play a huge role in determining attitudes and habits that lead to wealth/poverty.
Published: April 17, 2007 9:54 AM
David White
RogerM,
You will need to refute Oppenheimer and Nock on the nature and origins of the state to back up your claim that it is legitimate. Perhaps you would take the time to read them before commenting further;
http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state1.htm
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
Published: April 17, 2007 10:08 AM
Person
Interestingly enough, Chodorov was a Georgist. Go fig.
Published: April 17, 2007 10:12 AM
anon
You should really make a tax version of this:
http://www.piratesandemperors.com/
Published: April 17, 2007 12:11 PM
RogerM
David:"You will need to refute Oppenheimer and Nock..."
Do they contribute anything significant beyond what Rothbard, Hoppe and Chodorov offer? I've read a great deal of their works on anarchism. I'm really not interested in reading more unless they offer significant improvements. They don't appear very different from each other. Chodorov, however, is refreshingly honest. Instead of pretending that he has developed an iron-clad argument as does Hoppe, he admits that the choice of two opposing views is arbitrary:
"On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the state the keystone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxation per se; the state's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the state is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.
"The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the state is either a natural or a socially necessary institution."
I disagree with him that the positions he describes above, which are presuppositions or assumptions, are unprovable, but I agree that they are unprovable using a priori reasoning alone. Methods exist in logic to test assumptions upon which logic is built, but they involve comparing models with reality, which anarchists refuse to do.
But notice this leap in logic: "The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless;" I don't see that the right to life logically leads to an absolute right to property; it does lead to a right to property, but not an absolute right. This is where traditional natural rights and anarchism part company.
The right to life leads to a right to property and, just as important, a right to survival. In turn, if a state ensures survival better than anarchy, then the state is good and moral.
I'm quibbling over one word, "absolute", as applied to property. But the inclusion or deletion of that one word leads to enormously different views of society: one describing the state as legit and good, the other portraying it as the root of all evil. The second view of government is a typical result of pure a priori reasoning; a tiny error in the first assumptions in a long chain of logic can lead to huge errors at the end of the chain. The only way to avoid such error is to compare assumptions and conclusions to reality to make sure the assumptions don't contain a fallacy and that the conclusions to make unwarranted leaps in logic.
Published: April 17, 2007 12:36 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM said:
Government would then be voluntary.
Your right to life stems from your self-ownership, not the other way around. Do not also forget that the right of self-ownership is equally held by others.
Published: April 17, 2007 1:25 PM
adi
Different ethical systems might have different properties if axioms on which they are based are different. Internal consistency of axioms of ethical system doesnt quarantee systems correspondence with the reality though..
Ultimately it's a question about values and not any a priori knowledge which will make one to select some system as his own.
We Europeans are so thoroughly indoctrinated into legal positivism that it's hard to imagine a system based on different characteristics.
Sometimes when economist practises his positive science he must take into account some extra theoretical issues. It's outside elements which he must import to his theory.
Published: April 17, 2007 2:24 PM
Brad
It is good that the word robbery was used instead of mere theft. There is much more to taxation than the conversion of property from one to another, it is the inherent force used, the threat of force, and the underlying terroristic approach of the robber.
Of course in the hands of government, robbery is cloaked in a sanctimonious sense of Right-Doing that extends the transaction even further toward that of behavorial control. The Robber is so sure of his moral superiority that he not only justly robs and threatens and forces and terrorizes, he threatens even more unless the victim acts further "voluntarily" to his own detriment and loss. Endlessly forbidden and compelled, only allowed to labor and not much else, and must show his willingness to disappear altogether in name of something or other.
Published: April 17, 2007 2:31 PM
N. Joseph Potts
Chodorov's assertion that tax costs add to the amount of markup (hence, profit) is specious. The error that price/profit depend on cost was exploded long ago, not only by all Austrians, but by virtually all those pretending to the name "economist."
The effects of increased costs arising from taxation bear both on the seller and the buyer, and are both negative (they reduce producer's surplus as well as consumer's surplus). The way the burden is split between the two is called the "incidence of taxation" and depends on the comparative elasticities of supply and demand.
A similar error leads him to assert that taxes on wage income "cannot be passed on."
But he's got a great attitude - you can't deny that.
Published: April 17, 2007 2:38 PM
Axel Riemer
RogerM,
I'm confused by your statement "The right to life leads to a right to property and, just as important, a right to survival. In turn, if a state ensures survival better than anarchy, then the state is good and moral."
I'm no good with html tags, sorry
Aren't 'right to life' and 'right to survival' statements expressing the same thing?
Reading it, it looks like you said given 1, we get 2 and 1.
Published: April 17, 2007 4:09 PM
Francisco Torres
What if taxation was voluntary?
The government already issues T-bills to finance itself in part. It could perfectly rely on these to pay for its budgets. However, politicians cannot trust people to buy the T-bills always or to contribute in a voluntary way, since most of the government's functions can be provided by the private sector, first, and most of the time, are undesirable, second. Empire building is also extremely more difficult without taxes.
("Taxation" by definition cannot be voluntary. In order to be voluntary, you would have to call it "contribution".)
Published: April 17, 2007 4:20 PM
Paul Edwards
Roger,
"What if taxation was voluntary?"
Now your talking, dude. Keep it up, you're inner anarchist is trying to express itself.
But keep in mind, a voluntary tax is a contradiction. The threat of the initiation of violence to enforce involuntary payment is what turns a membership fee or insurance premium into a tax.
Published: April 17, 2007 4:38 PM
rtr
It's not surprising that economics has been stuck when it comes to the topic of poverty for so long. The proof is there if the fundamental a priori truths are used.
First of all, taxation is *by definition* robbery. That's simple proper definition, nothing more. It was Mises who observed (quoting from memory) "people are *either* freely trading with one another *or* they are not. There is no 'third way' possibility." This is one of the greatest epistemological truths to be discovered. So take a minute to comprehend the full set of possibilities contained, for this is the method by which all knowledge whatsoever is established and proved.
Thus the difference between trade and theft is voluntary exchange versus violent compulsion. That's either or full set possibility.
Now where has economics been stuck since the early 20th century? It's been stuck on not being able to *prove* "net" poverty results from theft. People have been confused with the inability to measure and prove differing subjective utilities between differing people. Note it's already proved that trade creates wealth, creates profit for all parties in every instance. That's the only reason trade occurs, because what is received is valued more than what is given away in exchange. So why hasn't the flip side of that equation been proved? Because they suck? Because they weren't the greatest economist ever, so far? :p Lots suspect it, just like in this Chodorov article. Plenty have touched on it. But nobody has *proved* that there is a net wealth, net utility loss when one specific material good is possessed by person A rather than person B.
But wtf I might as well claim big Nobel Prize #8 (or whatever number it's at) by going for the elusive proof. By definition both A and B would be better off possesing scarce good S. That is so by definition of good S being subjectively valued by both A and B.
There are only two possible ways that good S can be uniquely possessed by either A or B. Voluntary trade or violent theft. The full set of violence possibility consists of theft, rape, and murder. Any embrace of violence, logically followed leads to a Hobbesian war of all against all anihilation of the species. To arbitrarily call for some limited violence is, well, arbitrary. Even assuming one possible surviving acting being could possess all available scarce material resources, he still would by definition be worse off, be poorer.
By definition net poverty results from one actor possessing all material things because of the principle of the division of labor eminating from trade. One person cannot transform all material things into subjective value increasing forms as efficiently as more than one person can. That must mean there is a marginal reduction in net subjective value wealth eminating from violence. So what have the non-1337 economists missed when they cite an example of say a poor beggar child stealing a piece of fruit from a tree owned by a rich landowner?
Yup, this is another demonstration on par with the demonstration of marginal utility establishing how a glass of water can be more valuable than a diamond, which took 2,000 years to answer. Yet another reason I'm the greatest economist ever, so far, is I give the answers without 1,000 pages of fluff surrounding them.
But first, it should be noted that society only exists to the extent peaceful cooperation voluntary trade exists. Again, this is either or full set possibility proved knowledge. Every action which is violent reduces the degree to which society exists. Even the most violent of (what were called) "civilizations" by definition still had to have a degree of voluntary cooperation, whether even in those of the hierarchy trusted with carrying out orders. If that wasn't necessarily so, such an extreme anti-society would soon perish.
So what's the answer? How is it *proved* that a child beggar stealing a peace of fruit from a rich landowner's tree creates net subjective utility loss? By definition of the rich landowner not voluntarily giving the peace of fruit to the child beggar. All action only occurs because it increases subjective value, is aimed at going to a state of lesser disatisfaction from a state of greater disatisfaction. This is true even for those using violence.
But what the non-1337 economists missed is that a child beggar capable of theft is also a child beggar capable of trading labor. Trading labor for a peace of fruit by definition increases net subjective value for both the beggar and the landowner, for society. By definition every act of theft is a marginal reduction in net subjective utility for the same reason that a diamond can be more valuable than a glass of water.
If both person A and person B want scarce good S (and both are willing to use any means to possess it), it can be uniquely possessed only by murder of the other, which will causes division of labor net subjective value loss. Now it may turn out that the wealthy landowner observes the child beggar picking fruit from his tree but decides it isn't worth the effort beyond a certain level of defensive means. But this would be a choice of limiting net subjective value utility loss, especially when compared to the possibility of person A trading something of subjective value to person B for scarce good S. In fact person B has an incentive to seek out the giving of fruit to child beggars in return for trade of labor or other goods to increase his subjective value. Person B even has to compete amongst other Person B types to offer Person A the best deal possible.
Theft is always a net subjective value utility loss by definition of action. If person A did not want scarce good S he would voluntarily allow person B to possess scarce good S, therby *increasing* net subjective value social utility.
So let's analyze with a different good, dollar bills, to further demonstrate the proof. Person A has $1. Person B has $999,999. It is proved that a net subjective utility loss results from A stealing $1 from B such that after the theft A has $2 and B has $999,998. How?
Subjective value is not material. Subjective value is immaterial to the existence of the total $1,000,000 in the example. This is proved by the act of trade. An exchange of this for that does not increase the net material existence of anything. But by definition of trade, trade increases the subjective value of both actors such that net subjective value utility post trade is greater than net subjective value utility pre trade. *By definition of no voluntary trade occuring, net subjective utility value is at the maximum level it can possibly be.* Trade occurs because it increases, because it maximizes subjetive value utility. Any deviation from that state is by definition a net decrease in subjective value utility. Any violent reallocation (which is the *only* way a reallocation can occur) by definition decreases net subjective value utility. If it didn't decrease net subjective value utility, voluntary trade would have (could have) occured. This is as true for person A and person B as it is for 6 billion people. That's the reason society formed and evolved in the first place.
Maybe I should also address the inevitable assertion that there is no way to measure the difference between subjective value gained by a thief versus subjective value lost by a victim. Somebody might allege the net subjective value utility could be the same or even greater after theft than before theft. Of course that would be an argument for a war of all against all which flies in the face of the reason society exists.
It's proved false by contradiction of trade. Trade results in net subjective utility value increase in every instance. If theft resulted in net subjective value utility increase then a war of against all would have evolved rather than a division of labor society. Both parties not only "feel" but are by definition wealthier from trade. That is not the case with theft. Because the reallocation was not voluntarily forthcoming the net result must be a decrease in net subjective value utility. The accounting must include each person's marginal subjective valuation of the good and each person's marginal subjective valuation of the existence of society, of the existence of peace, of mere existence. Every act of theft invites a reciprocal act of theft without allusion to degree, without subjective value of security of possession or existence. As such there is not mutual consensual establishment of property. There would be no such word as "theft" to describe that state of affairs. The destruction of person and property brought about by an anti-society war of all against all cannot compete against the existence of society in generating wealth.
Theft of scarce good S does not guarantee consensual possession of scarce good S but invites wasted energy and destruction in a back and forth battle for scarce good S.
As such one who argued the case that child beggar A stealing a piece of fruit from wealthy landowner B increasing net utility would *simultaneously also* be aguing the case that wealthy landowner B stealing a rag from child begger A would also be increasing net utility. This is an absurd back and forth transfer of scarce good S between person A and person B risking death and destruction of scarce good S. As such the act of theft is not voluntarily bringing into consensual possession but taking into disputed war, by definition a decrease in net subjective value utility. Granted this may provide some incentive for charity but no where near the incentive to increase one's wealth by increasing the wealth of others through trade.
Ahahaha. That was an old school Menger style proof. So why aren't the hard core professional economists busting out the Nobel Prize demonstrations like me? Because by definition of getting their PhD they had to pile bullshit on top of bullshit to get that degree, and it's very hard to find your way out of the bullshit when you've been piling it all around yourself in your professional "advancement". I was at the right place at the right time when I stepped back and called bullshit on the definition of money. And now because of that, I am the greatest economist ever, so far. So what if it was "easy". That's what economic efficiency is all about. :P Better 140 years rather than another 2,000 years.
Published: April 17, 2007 4:52 PM
David White
RogerM,
I assure you that you will not waste a moment of your time reading either book and preferably both. You will be the better for it, as would any thinking person.
And heck, they're free!
Published: April 17, 2007 6:12 PM
billwald
Life is a series of choices among many options. In the USofA, paying taxes is a result of choosing a job that creates a paper trail.
Don't want to pay taxes, don' own property in your name and don't pay the taxes.
The richest people in the world don't generate taxable wages. Neither do the poorest.
Person joins the Elks or a golf club or the Boy Scouts he expects to pay the required taxes whatever they are called. Live in a condo and pay the tax. Live in the USofA and pay the tax. Arguments against taxes boil down to "I didn't ask to be born." Don't want to pay, leave. You didn't ask to be born in the USofA? That's the one thing that is easily rectified.
Published: April 17, 2007 7:01 PM
Sol Rosenberg
billwald, blaming the victim is neither intelligent nor civil. Please follow the posting guidelines.
Published: April 17, 2007 7:31 PM
Brainpolice
Quite scary logic there, billwald. It is indeed blaming the victim. Apparently you believe that people who have just been born "owe" money to "society". Very wild.
Published: April 17, 2007 10:55 PM
Vince Daliessio
billwald,
Most of your argument rests on an assumed freedom of contract that your conclusion denies. That is called inconsistency, and it is no way to win an argument, not eith this bunch anyway. Try again.
Published: April 17, 2007 11:08 PM
RogerM
Axel:"Aren't 'right to life' and 'right to survival' statements expressing the same thing?"
I think I should have written self-ownership leads to the right to property and the right to life (or survival). The right to life and the absolute right to property can conflict, so the right to life suggests a limit to property rights.
Published: April 17, 2007 11:15 PM
RogerM
Paul: "Now your talking, dude. Keep it up, you're inner anarchist is trying to express itself."
I've often written that I never totally opposed anarchism. There's a lot in it that I like and I would like to move the country in that direction as much as possible. What I can't stomach is the all-gov-is-evil, all-tax-is-theft, all-war-is-murder nonsense.
Published: April 17, 2007 11:20 PM
Kevin B.
Hello billwald,
As a citizen, you must pay taxes on all income, foreign or domestic. Leaving the country doesn't help.
And if you think that the answer lies in renouncing citizenship, a daunting task indeed, well, you have another thing coming.
The government claims the ability to tax you even after you go through the trouble of successfully renouncing your citizenship. So don't insult us with that cornball
garbage.
Published: April 17, 2007 11:28 PM
TLWP Sam
That's right Kevin B as long as you are a U.S. citizen . . . ;D
Published: April 17, 2007 11:51 PM
TGGP
RogerM, if you've read the Bell Curve and want to find out about the non-genetic components of life outcomes, I'd suggest the work of Judith Harris like "The Nurture Assumption" and "No Two Alike"
Published: April 18, 2007 12:38 AM
Björn Lundahl
“What I can't stomach is the all-gov-is-evil, all-tax-is-theft, all-war-is-murder nonsense.”
This expression of a person’s feelings, really, is very convincing indeed, and really proves why the state is not a criminal organization. Paul has probably changed his mind, by now, about the whole thing. He probably thinks that “well, now when Roger has said this, I do not any longer believe that the state is a criminal organization.”
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 1:13 AM
Björn Lundahl
“I think I should have written self-ownership leads to the right to property and the right to life (or survival). The right to life and the absolute right to property can conflict, so the right to life suggests a limit to property rights.”
Above statement is a logical fallacy as property rights are a prerequisite for human life:
Which principles are an objective condition for preserving the human race and human life?
To objective examine if something is a condition for something else, we have to mentally grasp a state of things, where the supposed condition doesn’t exist anywhere and at all.
For example, if we suppose that the existence of oxygen is a condition for the preservation of the human race, we grasp a state of things, where oxygen doesn’t exist anywhere on earth. If we would let some oxygen exist somewhere on earth, then we couldn’t make a valid conclusion. We wouldn’t know if oxygen were a condition for preserving human life. To make a valid conclusion we have to grasp where oxygen doesn’t exist anywhere and at all. Under this condition we can, naturally, conclude that no human life would exist. We can, because of this reason conclude that oxygen is a condition for the preservation of the human race. We can also conclude that when we objectively examined as we just did, if oxygen was a condition for preserving human life, we would be bound to take under consideration the whole reality and not only some parts of it. We wouldn’t let oxygen exist somewhere on earth, because if we had done so, we wouldn’t have grasped the effects, under consideration, to the whole situation (the whole reality), and our conclusion would therefore have been invalid.
We can only make one choice, either we take under consideration some parts of reality or we take under consideration the whole reality. Reason and logic tell us that if we take under consideration the whole reality, this will reflect the truth, because we can’t consider anything more absolute and perfect. This procedure is an axiomatic procedure.
Mark Humphrey “I don't want to precipitate trench warfare with devoted Rothbardians, but I strongly suspect that Rothbard owed his insight about "life as the standard of moral value" to Ayn Rand. I can't prove this, of course. Sadly, in "The Ethics of Liberty", (published in the early Eighties) Rothbard chose to, in a sense, blacklist Rand by claiming that NO ONE, other than himself, in the libertarian movement was working to develope a system of rationally defensible ethics. (Maybe Rothbard meant "at the moment I am writing this statement".)”
Björn That life is an axiomatic value and functions “as the standard of moral value” in an ethical system, Rothbard could, alternatively for example, have gotten this insight from Mises himself through analyzing his statement in his book, “Human Action”, page 11:
“We may say that action is the manifestation of a man's will.”
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp
I am not saying that Rothbard did get his insight from Mises; I am only saying that it was possible. Surely, many other possibilities exist which we do not know anything about.
Mark Humphrey “It has been awhile since I've read Hoppe, and Rothbard; but I suspect Hoppe's reasoning goes: either we all own ourselves, or everyone owns everyone else. Since the first proposition is clearly more defensible than the latter absurd proposition, one can affirm self ownership as valid. But if this is the argument, it fails. For that argument assumes that which it sets out to prove, namely that an ethical concept, "ownership", exists. But on this basis, ownership remains unproven, so that one could just as well assert: "no one owns anything, and anything goes."”
Björn Self-ownership is a natural fact, since a man in his very nature controls his own mind and body (natural disposition), that is, he is a natural self-owner of his own will and person (having a free will) and if this was not true, neither could he effectively control any property and, therefore, not own it. In other words; “nothing could control and own something”.
Naturally, praxeology the science of human action, by itself logically confirms the natural fact of self-ownership, since praxeology is based upon “the acting man consciously intending to improve his own satisfaction” and I quote from answers.com:
“From praxeology Mises derived the idea that every conscious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction. He was careful to stress that praxeology is not concerned with the individual's definition of end satisfaction, just the way he sought that satisfaction. The way in which a person will increase his satisfaction is by removing a source of dissatisfaction. As the future is uncertain so every action is speculative.
An acting man is defined as one capable of logical thought — to be otherwise would be to make one a mere creature who simply reacts to stimuli by instinct. Similarly an acting man must have a source of dissatisfaction which he believes capable of removing, otherwise he cannot act.
Another conclusion that Mises reached was that decisions are made on an ordinal basis. That is, it is impossible to carry out more than one action at once, the conscious mind being only capable of one decision at a time — even if those decisions can be made in rapid order. Thus man will act to remove the most pressing source of dissatisfaction first and then move to the next most pressing source of dissatisfaction.
As a person satisfies his first most important goal and after that his second most important goal then his second most important goal is always less important than his first most important goal. Thus, for every further goal reached, his satisfaction, or utility, is lessened from the preceding goal. This is the rule of diminishing marginal utility.
In human society many actions will be trading activities where one person regards a possession of another person as more desirable than one of his own possessions, and the other person has a similar higher regard for his colleague's possession than he does for his own. This subject of praxeology is known as catallactics, and is the more commonly accepted realm of economics.”
http://www.answers.com/Praxeology?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Further:
The Ethics of Liberty, page 45:
Footnote:
“[1]Professor George Mavrodes, of the department of philosophy of the University of Michigan, objects that there is another logical alternative: namely, “that no one owns anybody, either himself or anyone else, nor any share of anybody.” However, since ownership signifies range of control, this would mean that no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly vanish.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eight.asp
Or in my own words:
Why must anybody own anything?
In accordance with our objective test to find out if something is a condition for something else, we grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all:
“The existence of property rights”:
In a world without any property rights nobody would be able to do anything, since nobody has the right to control anything. Not even themselves (see below about property rights in your own person).
This question is not only a contradiction it is also silly. You ask a question which means that you control yourselves (natural disposition), that is owning yourself (see below the excellent writing of Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The other contradiction is that if nobody would own anything, nobody would be able to hinder anyone to own anything either since they would otherwise have an invalid control (having the disposition to) of everyone else, that is having an invalid ownership to everybody else (see below about valid property rights in your own person).
Ownership itself is, therefore, an objective condition for the preservation of human life.
Normative principles:
http://normativeprinciples.blogspot.com/2006/12/normative-principles-pure-free-market_10.html
Please read some of Hans-Hermann Hoppe´s excellent writing from the book “The Ethics and Economics of Private Property”:
http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf
And to:
ON THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION OF THE ETHICS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf
An Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html
The animation in full-sized window:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 1:53 AM
Axel Riemer
Very nice.
I'll take issue with Mark Humphrey's statement:
"...I suspect Hoppe's reasoning goes: either we all own ourselves, or everyone owns everyone else. Since the first proposition is clearly more defensible than the latter absurd proposition, one can affirm self ownership as valid. But if this is the argument, it fails. For that argument assumes that which it sets out to prove..."
In a book I borrowed from my professor, "How to Read and Do Proofs" by Daniel Solow, in the most basic method of going about a proof of "If A then B"
"...when proving 'if A then B' you can assume A is true and you must somehow use this information to reach the conclusion that B is true."
if you want to say 'B if and only if A', you must do the previous step, and then assume B is false, and use this information to then show that A will also be false, thus proving that B will be true only if A is true, and if A is false, then B is not true.
Hoppe's reasoning must therefore be only of implication form.
the general implication table is
A B A implies B
true true true
true false false
false true true
false false true
By this table, you can see that it is only possible to make a solid assumption about A implying B during the case when A is true, and you can show cases of B being true or false.
It looks to me like Hoppe went with the 'if A then B' formula. He assumed A, and went on to prove some other things (I haven't read Hoppe.. his book sits in plastic wrap on my shelf :( ). However, if A is ever false, this does not mean that B must therefore be false. In fact, when A is false, B can be either false or true, and A will still imply B just as long as B is always true whenever A is true.
This is all just basic mathematics. Any little text on logic should give you this.
Of course, if someone (or Hoppe) really wants to get crazy, you could try proving B if and only if A, and show that whenever B is false A is false, thus putting the property rights and self-ownership relationship firmly in stone.
Published: April 18, 2007 8:56 AM
Axel Riemer
gr. text formatting messed up my table.
/A /B /A implies B
/true /true /true
/true /false /false
/false /true /true
/false /false /true
Published: April 18, 2007 8:58 AM
RogerM
Bjorn: "Which principles are an objective condition for preserving the human race and human life?"
Property rights were invented by mankind to solve problems related to shortages. I think it's kind of obvious that mankind existed, and survived, long before property rights or even the notion of property existed. Property rights cause the human race to flourish, but obviously are not necessary for survival; just look at the USSR.
Published: April 18, 2007 9:21 AM
Jesse
Try this for clarity:
ABA implies B truetruetrue truefalsefalse falsetruetrue falsefalsetruePublished: April 18, 2007 11:42 AM
Jesse
What happened? The preview didn't match the final comment!
What use is a preview that doesn't show what the comment will actually look like?
Published: April 18, 2007 11:43 AM
Francisco Torres
The right to life leads to a right to property and, just as important, a right to survival.
It is a non sequitur - a "right" to survival becomes a positive right, which cannot follow two negative rights (the right not to be killed and the right not to be robbed of your possessions). In other words, do not have a right to survival, you only have a right to life, to property, and to pursuit your interests.
Survival is simply a result. If a person is stupid and walks off a cliff, to whom can he or she demand the right for survival, before he/she hits the ground? Obviously if the person had a parachute, he or she would SURVIVE the fall as a RESULT (provided he or she pulls the string on time), but the fact that the person had a parachute in possession does not give way to the right to survival, only that the person had a right to OWN the parachute, and to pursuit his or her interests (that is, pulling the string). What if the parachute fails to open?
Having a right to life means in a negative sense that everybody else has NO right to take that life away, invariably in a violent manner. Having a right to property means that not one else has a right to take that property away in a violent, coercive way. However, survival is a matter of personal choice and sense of self-preservation, not a "right" in itself. Nobody has a moral obligation to ensure your survival, not even if you make stupid choices.
Published: April 18, 2007 11:56 AM
Francisco Torres
Property rights were invented by mankind to solve problems related to shortages.
Roger, Property stems from the self-ownership principle. Even if cave people did not own many things, they still held a few things (like their time) as their property. The act of owning something thus is NATURAL for us, as humans, and as animals. So it was not like people sat down and laid the foundations of property on parchment: "From now on, anything that is difficult to find, then, finders keepers!"
Even considering this, how does this dovetail with your notion that taxation is a moral or ethical act?
Published: April 18, 2007 12:04 PM
Scott D
To Jesse:
ABA implies B truetruetrue truefalsefalse falsetruetrue falsefalsetrueMaybe you can use tables?
Published: April 18, 2007 12:53 PM
Scott D
Looks like tables can't be used.
Published: April 18, 2007 12:54 PM
Jesse
I did use a table.
As you've probably just found out, tables show up fine in the preview but don't affect the formatting after you submit.
Published: April 18, 2007 1:26 PM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM
“Property rights were invented by mankind to solve problems related to shortages. I think it's kind of obvious that mankind existed, and survived, long before property rights or even the notion of property existed.”
It seems that you are confusing law enforcement with property rights. Even the lonely Robinson Crusoe on his desert island had control (and a natural disposition to) of his own body that is self-ownership in his own person. He also had control (and a disposition to) of the things he made out of nature and the land he acted on. Property rights are discovered by reason and recognize this fact that man cannot exist without those rights. If Crusoe was not allowed to own anything, he would not be allowed to act and therefore not, either, to exist. It is a logical fact derived from our reality.
“Property rights cause the human race to flourish, but obviously are not necessary for survival; just look at the USSR.”
I have said that property rights are a condition for human life. Without any property rights, man cannot exist. If we conceive a state of things where property rights do not exist anywhere and at all, this necessary also includes that the state does not have any right to own any property. You forget the fact that the state in the USSR owned property.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 1:36 PM
RogerM
Bjorn:"Property rights are discovered by reason and recognize this fact that man cannot exist without those rights."
So property is an eternal principle like gravity? I don't think so. As far as we know, animals don't have property and they get along just fine. In fact, asserting that man cannot exist without those rights contradicts history and common sense. Without property, mankind's life would be brutish and ugly, but man could exist. Mankind existed a long time before anyone "discovered" property. If no one has a right to his own body, then just like in the animal world, the strongest will take whatever he wants and only the strongest will survive, but they will survive just fine without property rights. Man "discovered" property rights as a means to civilize life and end some of the brutishness.
Published: April 18, 2007 2:19 PM
Björn Lundahl
If we were going to discover objective ethical norms with the use of reason, it would be absurd if we started this investigation by analyzing the basic inclinations of the nature of ants, grasshoppers, plants, giraffes, elephants etc. As this would not be a successful inquiry, the nature of man must at least be implicitly assumed to exist and, therefore, to be studied in such an examination.
Ethical norms and rights are also, only, related to the species man. The proof of this is that “if man did not exist nor would any ethical norms and rights persist”.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 2:41 PM
Björn Lundahl
State ownership (public property) of any land cannot be justified. As this is true, a state does not have any legitimate justification to force anyone to leave any area.
Let us now define Justly owned property rights to land.
Man doesn’t create land but he acts and creates on, in and out of land.
Also here we examine a state of things when man for the first time, enters this world. When, then, the first man enters the untouched land, and creates by action on or in or out of land, then this part of the land which he has now touched, belongs to him. Why the first man? If the first man doesn’t have the property right to this part of the land, nor does individual number two, three, four, five etc have the right to the land, and while they are waiting for the last man who hasn’t yet entered this world, man will quickly perish.
If we grasp a state of things, where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all (this objective test is, of course, in line with our reasoning about such a procedure for finding out a condition for something else):
“When someone creates by action on or out of land, then this part which he has now touched belongs to him”.
This would mean that everyone would be stealing anyone’s Justly owned land, that is as soon as someone starts creating by action on or in or out of land, someone else would have the right to the land in question and the human race would immediately exterminate.
We can conclude that the condition for the extermination of the human race is to preserve the principle “the right to steal the land which the first man has touched and created on or in or out”. Our conclusion will also therefore only be that the condition for the preservation of the human race is that no man ever should have such a right.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 2:44 PM
Dennis
As Mises brilliantly demonstrated, from the standpoint of economic analysis, modern industrial/commercial society could not exist without private property rights in the factors of production because economic calculation would be impossible.
Yes man would exist, but his social organization would degenerate into that of the primitive household or tribal society. And given the greatly reduced output of the primitive household or tribal society, the human population would be a tiny fraction of its current magnitude and those who would be alive would generally exist at a subsistence level.
Interestingly, Mises reached these conclusions based on economic, and not ethical, analysis. He was a utilitarian and not a supporter of natural rights theory.
Published: April 18, 2007 3:02 PM
RogerM
Bjorn: "If we were going to discover objective ethical norms with the use of reason, it would be absurd if we started this investigation by analyzing the basic inclinations of the nature of ants, grasshoppers, plants, giraffes, elephants etc."
Why would it be absurd? According to the theory of evolution, we're animals with larger brains, nothing more. I brought up the analogy to show that property rights are not like oxygen, as you clamed, because even animals need oxygen, water, food, etc.
You need to make up your mind about whether property rights are a necessity for life, like oxygen (as you wrote), or an ethical principle. If property is an ethical principle, it's clearly not necessary for life. Property rights are necessary for civilization, but not life.
Bjorn:"This would mean that everyone would be stealing anyone’s Justly owned land, that is as soon as someone starts creating by action on or in or out of land, someone else would have the right to the land in question and the human race would immediately exterminate."
I have no problems with your description of the origins of property rights. It's similar to that of natural law. But it's utterly ridiculous to say that the human race would end without property rights. Think about history for just a moment. How many times in history has one group of people stolen another's land and the human race survived? Every empire from Babylon to Spain stole other people's land. The strong will always survive until someone stronger comes along to steal their land. If no one had rights to any land, that doesn't mean no one will occupy that land and use it for productive purposes.
Published: April 18, 2007 3:11 PM
Brainpolice
" But it's utterly ridiculous to say that the human race would end without property rights."
Actually, it makes perfect sense when you realize that one's self-ownership is the first property right - without it, noone could take any action at all, and therefore indeed, there would be no people. It is also perfectly logical in that without ownership over material objects, again, everyone dies, as there is no way to end up with food for consumption. It is inherent that there must be a property right in order for us to aquire anything at all, down to the bare necessities of clothing, food and shelter. Without property ownership, none of it exists.
Published: April 18, 2007 3:34 PM
Brainpolice
As for your arguement about stolen land, it inherently presupposes the existance of a legitimate property right on the part of the original owner. The entire concept of theft implies a property right on the part of the original owner. You can point to situations in which people are plundering eachother, but this does not negate that it requires an original property right in order for it to be plundered in the first place. That is, it would be false to suppose that there are zero property rights in such a situation. The land had to be transformed by an original owner before someone else could plunder it.
Published: April 18, 2007 3:43 PM
Björn Lundahl
“So property is an eternal principle like gravity?”
Yes, property rights are eternal.
“I don't think so. As far as we know, animals don't have property and they get along just fine.”
You must accept the fact that you are not a giraffe, horse or an elephant. You will sooner or later get over it. Don’t be so hard on yourself. For the rest, see my above statement regarding rights and animals.
“Mankind existed a long time before anyone "discovered" property.”
I have already answered this. See my above example of Robinson Crusoe on his desert island. History is of no use here as this is a logical conclusion of a fact that must exist as long as man exists.
“If no one has a right to his own body, then just like in the animal world, the strongest will take whatever he wants and only the strongest will survive, but they will survive just fine without property rights.”
You do not understand that without any property rights “the strongest” cannot do anything. If “the strongest” act they obviously have those rights in practice and who would hinder them to make the full use of their natural rights of self-ownerships and, also, their unjustified rights of owning other people and their properties?
I will post this again:
The Ethics of Liberty, page 45:
Footnote:
“[1]Professor George Mavrodes, of the department of philosophy of the University of Michigan, objects that there is another logical alternative: namely, “that no one owns anybody, either himself or anyone else, nor any share of anybody.” However, since ownership signifies range of control, this would mean that no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly vanish.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eight.asp
I will, again, post this too:
The other contradiction is that if nobody would own anything, nobody would be able to hinder anyone to own anything either since they would otherwise have an invalid control (having the disposition to) of everyone else, that is having an invalid ownership to everybody else (see below about valid property rights in your own person).
“Man "discovered" property rights as a means to civilize life and end some of the brutishness.”
Prosperity is probably the main reason, but nevertheless property rights are, as a logical fact, prerequisites or conditions for human life and this regardless whether we recognize this truth or not and enforce those rights or not.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 3:56 PM
Francisco Torres
But it's utterly ridiculous to say that the human race would end without property rights. Think about history for just a moment. How many times in history has one group of people stolen another's land and the human race survived?
Your question is loaded, Roger. Also, if one group of people steals land from another group of people, and being both groups from the same species, then it follows that in any case (whether the stealing group is successfull or not) that the human species WILL survive, by way of one group or the other.
Every empire from Babylon to Spain stole other people's land. The strong will always survive until someone stronger comes along to steal their land.
Yes, but it is not like Babylonians were a different species of animal - even if the previous group ceased to exist, the new group would still have to be human. Your objection to the argument that the human race would fall without property rights does not stand if you cannot show how being a Babylonian or an Assirian excludes you from being part of the human race. You are just describing a change of ownership
Published: April 18, 2007 4:03 PM
Björn Lundahl
Human Action:
“History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.”
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec3.asp
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 4:32 PM
Björn Lundahl
The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:
21. THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS
“But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching. For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyone.asp
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 18, 2007 4:56 PM
RogerM
Bjorn: "You do not understand that without any property rights “the strongest” cannot do anything. If “the strongest” act they obviously have those rights in practice and who would hinder them to make the full use of their natural rights of self-ownerships and, also, their unjustified rights of owning other people and their properties?"
Pardon me. I thought you were using the term "property rights" in the same way that normal people do. I made the mistake again of forgetting that anarchists have their own private dictionary. I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that using common terms with a special definition that no one else knows is sort of dishonest.
I guess you're saying that because a person controls himself, and ownership equals control, then a person owns himself. Philosophically that's weird; it divides man into two parts because ownership requires an owner and an object to be owned. What part of man owns the body? The soul? No, that would be too religious. I suppose it would be too much to ask which part of man is the owner and which part is owned.
Obviously, if a person can't control his own body he can't work and feed himself and will die. But that is so utterly trivial and far removed from the discussion of whether the right to other property is absolute or not.
Outside of that trivial principle, mankind survived many years before discovering property rights in things other than his own body. The tribes of North America never had a concept of ownership of land until long after Europeans arrived, and for centuries they thought Europeans were stupid and immoral for insisting that they could have exclusive rights to land. Of course, the tribes fought a lot as a result.
May attempt to bring the discussion back to the original issue, whether property rights are absolute or not? Of course, now I have to add the qualification that I mean property other than owns own person. That's how anarchism makes conversation far more difficult than it should be.
It's clear that survival precedes and takes precedence over property rights (other than the right to one's person). A dead person has no need for property. And it's clear, too, that for most of human history, property rights have been severely limited. As I mentioned, many societies never recognized ownership of land. Humans discovered a right to property (outside of the trivial right to one's own person) as a means to reduce bloodshed and create a civil society. So the right to survival preceded property rights (excepting for the trivial instance of owning one's self). This is the typical thinking of natural law theorists. In addition, natural law theorists place a great deal of importance on the sociable nature of mankind and the need for social relationships in order for man to be happy and prosper. These theorists saw government as a legit and moral way to further survival, sociability and property rights (excluding the right to own one's self).
But for government to work, it must have the funds to pay government employees. Thus taxes. Natural law scholars never considered property (other than the ownership of one's self) to be absolute; survival and sociability were more important. But after survial and sociability, nothing was more important than property rights.
As I wrote far, far above this post, the choice to make property (other than that of self ownership) an absolute right is totally arbitrary. And if property rights (other than the right to self ownership) are not absolute, then governments are legitimate institutions and taxes are perfectly good and moral.
Published: April 18, 2007 5:46 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM said:
A person owns his body because he is his body.
Published: April 18, 2007 6:24 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM said:
If the property rights that extend from self-ownership are not absolute, then the right of self-ownership is not absolute, for then one would not have full ownership of one's own labor, suggesting incomplete self-ownership.
Therefore, to suggest that governments and taxes are legitimate is to suggest that man does not have complete ownership of himself.
Published: April 18, 2007 6:34 PM
Michael A. Clem
So, rtr, let me see if I've got this right. By definition, both parties benefit by a voluntary trade. By definition, then, if they choose not to trade, it is because it would not be beneficial to both parties. Therefore, by definition, using coercion (as taxation does) to cause an exchange is not beneficial to both parties, and therefore decreases net utility?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just making sure I've got the argument down.
Published: April 18, 2007 6:43 PM
RogerM
Kevin:"If the property rights that extend from self-ownership are not absolute, then the right of self-ownership is not absolute, for then one would not have full ownership of one's own labor, suggesting incomplete self-ownership. Therefore, to suggest that governments and taxes are legitimate is to suggest that man does not have complete ownership of himself."
That's nonsense. In the first place, self-ownership is a tautology. Saying a person owns himself is nothing more than saying a person is alive. As Bjorn has pointed out, people die if they don't own themselves, that is, control their bodies. So all you're arguing is that because a person is alive, he has a right to the use of property.
You argue that if property rights are not absolute then self-ownership is not absolute. What would relative self-ownership consist of? Since self-ownership is nothing but being alive, is relative self-ownership a state of being relatively alive? In other words, the concept of non-absolute self ownership is senseless. Either you have self-ownership (you're alive) or you don't (you're dead). I guess you could be alive but sick.
Published: April 18, 2007 6:57 PM
Dave
RogerM,
You really should not accuse others of committing the same dishonesties an logical fallacies you yourself commit.
For example, you accused your opponents (the anarcists) of being dishonest: "I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that using common terms with a special definition that no one else knows is sort of dishonest." I am not going to directly address this dihonest attempt at argument throught appeal to intimidation and authority at this point.
Instead, I am going to point out your own contorted logic. You said:
"As I wrote far, far above this post, the choice to make property (other than that of self ownership) an absolute right is totally arbitrary. And if property rights (other than the right to self ownership) are not absolute, then governments are legitimate institutions and taxes are perfectly good and moral."
Really? How does that follow? Even if property rights are not "absolute" (something you haven't even defined) how does it follow that "governments are legitimate institutions and taxes are perfectly good and moral?
This assertion is particularly silly after you admitted, parenthetically, that self ownership *is* absolute. As Kevin B. pointed out
"If the property rights that extend from self-ownership are not absolute, then the right of self-ownership is not absolute, for then one would not have full ownership of one's own labor, suggesting incomplete self-ownership."
He is exactly right, because unlike you, he is using logic and not just making a bunch of assertions.
Perhaps I seem somewhat uncivil. If that is the case, I apologise. However, I do not like to see people falsely accuse others of being dishonest, particularly when their own logic is bad (dishonest?) and the history they use to support their "arguments" really does not support their arguments unless one interpets it the same way they do; and when one does not interpet it the same way, the accusation of "making up history" is the nxt step. (I'm talking about you, RogerM.)
I will address your contorted history later RogerM, but for now I am out of time.
Regards,
Dave
Published: April 18, 2007 7:16 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM,
On the contrary, being alive isn't necessarily being man, otherwise animals would be men as well, with the same rights as men.
To be or not to be, that is the question.
Published: April 18, 2007 7:43 PM
Dave
Somehow while I was writing my post, RogerM beat me to the punch with his own post. I will now proceed to address his latest post because he has given my a lot to critque.
RogerM said:
"In the first place, self-ownership is a tautology. Saying a person owns himself is nothing more than saying a person is alive."
RogerM, self ownership is only a tautology if one defines it as you have.
However, self ownership is not a tautology if one defines it correctly as distinct concept that comes from the nature of man. Thus, saying a person owns himself is to say that he has free will; that he controls his mind and his body and can purposely direct his actions to attempt to attain some end that he values. This is not the same thing as simply being alive as you have said.
There are many reasons that self ownership and being alive is not the same thing. On one hand, if one defines "being alive" in the biological sense, the above definition I gave for self ownership does not follow, precisely because the vast majority of species that biologists define as alive direct their actions solely on instict; there is no free will or purposeful action, that is, there is no rational reflection and choosing of highest valued ends. This applies for higher level animals such as dogs, cats and monkeys even. On the other hand, if I define "being alive" only from the perspective of man, then self ownership is a tautology only if one subsumes under the definition of "being alive" the concept of self ownership. In other words, it is a tautology if one blindly says there is a one-to-one correspondence between the state of man being alive and owning himself. However, there are many problems with this approach.
For example consider an apple tree, which, bioligically, is a living thing. An apple tree is defined as: "A deciduous Eurasian tree (Malus pumila) having alternate simple leaves and white or pink flowers." There are many stages or concepts related an apple tree: it can be growing; it can be dormant; it can be bloooming; it can be dying; it could be an ugly tree or a beautifully groomed tree. Obviously, all these stages (or concepts) are all part and parcel of what it is to be an apple tree. Moreover, subsuming under the definition of an apple tree any one of this concepts would be invalid because if would obscure that concept, when in fact these are concepts that are seperate from simply being an apple tree.
The same goes for the concepts of man "being alive" and "self -ownership". Of course man being alive means by his very nature that he also has self-ownership. However, to say these two concepts are one and the same is to ignore their differences and the process one goes through to come to these distinctions.
Observe that "alive" is defined simply as: "Having existence or life." Also note that ownership is simply defined as: "The state or fact of being an owner." To come to these concepts, one must draw distinctions or otherwise blur concepts and thus reality. Simply because part of mans nature is his self ownership does not mean when one says one thing, he means the other; it simply means he implies the other, and because they are distinct concepts (with distint definitions), it is not a tautology to speak of the two seperately and address their implications seperately.
In sum, man is alive, he has life and he exists. Moreover, he has self-ownership, he is in fact the owner of himself. He controls his actions, and as I stated above: "saying a person owns himself is to say that he has free will; that he controls his mind and his body and can purposely direct his actions to attempt to attain some end that he values." This is a concept that comes from mans nature, from the fact that his is alive, as you might point out. In short, the attempt to reduce the concept to a tautology is invalid philosophically precisely because it obsures the various conepts related to being human.
RogerM said,
"You argue that if property rights are not absolute then self-ownership is not absolute. What would relative self-ownership consist of?"
You cannot see the answer because you have (dishonestly?) blurred the concept, reducing being alive and self-ownership to the same thing. Following the definition of self-ownership I gave, one can see an answer.
For example, if Joe decides he would like marry Jill, and she agrees, but some group of people prevents Joe from doing this, but still allows him to make all other decisions regarding my life unhampered, it is obvious that Joe's self-ownership is relatively restricted. In sum, Joe's right to attain one of his valued ends, marrying Jill, is prevented by force, but all his other valued ends are left free for him to pursue; thus his self-ownership is relatively less than they would be if he were allowed to marry Jill.
RogerM said,
"Since self-ownership is nothing but being alive, is relative self-ownership a state of being relatively alive? In other words, the concept of non-absolute self ownership is senseless. Either you have self-ownership (you're alive) or you don't (you're dead). I guess you could be alive but sick."
Hmm...for an answer, see above.
I am sorry for the long post. It probably has some minor conceptual errors; however I am confident that the main guist of what I said is correct. I welcome any and all critques.
Regards,
Dave
Published: April 18, 2007 10:36 PM
Björn Lundahl
I cannot see that Roger has done any valid argument at all, just a lot of words meaning nothing. Take for instance:
“Obviously, if a person can't control his own body he can't work and feed himself and will die. But that is so utterly trivial and far removed from the discussion of whether the right to other property is absolute or not.”
Trivial? A man has a natural control of himself and is therefore a natural self owner.
“Outside of that trivial principle, mankind survived many years before discovering property rights in things other than his own body. The tribes of North America never had a concept of ownership of land until long after Europeans arrived, and for centuries they thought Europeans were stupid and immoral for insisting that they could have exclusive rights to land. Of course, the tribes fought a lot as a result.”
Man has of course, survived before they “discovered” many things. If people are “aware” of property rights or not does not prove anything. If I need vitamin c and eat oranges but do not know that my body needs this vitamin, I will do alright in this regard anyway. The Indians had in practise the ownership of those land areas and this even if they did not know it.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 19, 2007 2:28 AM
Björn Lundahl
“The tribes of North America never had a concept of ownership of land until long after Europeans arrived, and for centuries they thought Europeans were stupid and immoral for insisting that they could have exclusive rights to land. Of course, the tribes fought a lot as a result.”
It is a pity that the Europeans did not respect the principle of self-ownership and property rights when they arrived in North America. In such a case the Indians would have been left alone from their interference in those areas were they worked and lived.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 19, 2007 6:26 AM
Björn Lundahl
The principle of utilitarianism is destructive.
Utilitarianism means that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Intellectually the principle lets the door stand wide open for the use of physical violence and theft against people which happens to belong to the lesser number. If we grasp a state of things where the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people exists in using physical violence and theft everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) against all those people that happened to belong to the lesser numbers, the human race would quickly perish.
As we have seen, the principle of utilitarianism if followed by all groups of people in all places would lead to human destruction and this, therefore, proves that the principle is destructive. Any crime could be done in the name of utilitarianism such as murder, theft, rape, slavery etc. The lesser number of people would always be at the mercy of the greatest number.
Private groups of people in society are therefore, naturally, not allowed to commit crimes in the name of utilitarianism.
The state has a “legal right” to commit crimes and the state nearly, always does it in the name of utilitarianism.
In the name of utilitarianism Hitler could have justified all the murdering of the Jews that he made. He probably, also, thought that he by doing those crimes achieved the greatest happiness for the greatest number of Germans.
Let us not forget:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-309490343652240839&q=hitler+jews
Video “The Rape of Nanking”:
http://video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=4920138942953644691
Or, alternatively, as Rothbard wrote in his book For a New Liberty:
“Let us consider a stark example: Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation-so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: "While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads, achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads." The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon nonaggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders—depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure—would not influence such a libertarian, the "absolutist" libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being "doctrinaire," to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty2.asp
If anything should die, it is the principle of utilitarianism.
The right path to follow is instead:
The Ethics of Liberty:
Hesselberg continues:
“But a social order is not possible unless man is able to conceive what it is, and what its advantages are, and also conceive those norms of conduct which are necessary to its establishment and preservation, namely, respect for another's person and for his rightful possessions, which is the substance of justice. . . . But justice is the product of reason, not the passions. And justice is the necessary support of the social order; and the social order is necessary to man's well-being and happiness. If this is so, the norms of justice must control and regulate the passions, and not vice versa.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp
Or in other words and in a more rigid form: "that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else".
I have written an essay about normative principles. Please go to:
http://normativeprinciples.blogspot.com/2006/12/normative-principles-pure-free-market_10.html
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 19, 2007 6:31 AM
TLWP Sam
Actually I'd say that 'rights' on their own and without any context are meaningless. If you live on an island all by yourself you make your claims to a great many rights such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. Problem is, though, no one is around to care.
On the other hand, in a completely amoral, chaotic 'society', you could make a claim to a right to live, but if someone decided that he wanted to kill you, that 'right' would simply mean you have decided to defend your life against anyone who'd try to take it away from you. Or you could claim a right to free speech yet your only capacity to that right is to stop anyone who'd try to shut you up.
Lest it be a Hobbesian world of one person against everyone one else for mere survival and not just be a idyllic 'r' word, 'rights' have to be a corresponding 'duty' towards other peoples' behaviour. The right for an individual to have a right to life means it is a duty for everyone else not to take the life of anyone else. Or, put another way, the right to life for the individual overrides the rights of everyone else to kill anyone they wish. Similarly the right to free speech is a duty imposed on others to not silence or suppress such speech. The freedom to religion means a duty to others not to go around destroying the faiths of everyone else.
Inevitably then 'rights' and their respective 'duties' have to ultimately be enforced by some sort of authority. Yet the key word 'enforcement' is interesting in itself. It's 'en-force-ment' not 'en-cuddles-ment' nor 'en-whatever-ment'. I hazard a guess that many prefer one rulebook towards acceptable rules and rights for identifying rights and their infringements could be why many people may prefer to adhere to a strict religion and/or state.
Published: April 19, 2007 7:21 AM
Jesse
Sam: ". . . If you live on an island all by yourself you make your claims to a great many rights such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. Problem is, though, no one is around to care."
I agree; rights are essentially meaningless when no one else is around to violate them in the first place. (They might still be relevant if there remains a potential for social interaction.)
Sam: "On the other hand, in a completely amoral, chaotic 'society', you could make a claim to a right to live, but if someone decided that he wanted to kill you, that 'right' would simply mean you have decided to defend your life against anyone who'd try to take it away from you. Or you could claim a right to free speech yet your only capacity to that right is to stop anyone who'd try to shut you up."
There are many different ways of looking at rights, but in my opinion to claim a right is to decide internally that retaliation against violators of that right is justified. It is true that rights are not self-enforcing like the physical laws; one can claim a right without possessing the ability to actually exercise that right. The right remains, however, so long as the individual believe that retaliation is justified, even if the individual never actually retaliates or even attempts to exercise the right.
All that is really necessary to avoid your Hobbesian scenario, however, is rational self-interest combined with the social division of labor. Disputes over rights aside, anti-social behavior includes its own punishment, and is ultimately self-defeating. Even without any punishment for violation of rights there would be no real danger that society could ever devolve into the sort of all-against-all struggle you describe. Furthermore, the punishment necessary to minimize the damage cause by the minority of anti-social individuals can come in the form of proportional self-defence, without any priviledged "authority" to make and/or enforce the "rules".
Published: April 19, 2007 9:10 AM
Dennis
My comment was not an attempt to illustrate or imply the correctness of utilitarianism compared to natural law theory. I only attempted to demonstrate that Mises reached his conclusion regarding the primacy of private property in the means of production using economic, and not ethical, analysis.
Moreover, the conclusions and laws of praxeology and economics are independent of ethics.
Published: April 19, 2007 10:09 AM
tMoC
Mises... was a utilitarian...
What?! Mises explicitly destroys the very possibility of utilitarianism in Human Action. No, he was a consequentialist. There is a huge difference.
Published: April 19, 2007 11:34 AM
Francisco Torres
Why is it clear? I believe you make the fallacy of thinking that a person's survival takes precedence over ANOTHER person's property. Is that so?
Which theorists? Are you really going to make an appeal to authority?
Thus... is totally irrelevant, plus begs the question. The fact that some "theorists" saw government as valid does not necessarily lead to thinking that taxation is good, moral or ethical. You are jumping the gun here.
Natural law scholars never considered property (other than the ownership of one's self) to be absolute; survival and sociability were more important.
Which scholars? Sociability and absolute property rights are NOT mutually exclusive concepts. Also, the concepts of "survival which precedes property rights" and sociability are not compatible, because "survival that precedes property rights" clearly sounds like "survival at all costs", with all its implications.
But after survial and sociability, nothing was more important than property rights.
You cannot have sociability without property rights. Even inthe case of collectivist societies, each person still owned HIS house, HIS clothes, HIS weapons, HIS women, HIS children, HIS captives (if any), et cetera. Otherwise, a society would quickly fall into the same chaos as the Plymouth colony on its first years.
As I wrote far, far above this post, the choice to make property (other than that of self ownership) an absolute right is totally arbitrary.
From the stanpoint of whom? Do you see the implicit ENVY that betrays your assertion?
And if property rights (other than the right to self ownership) are not absolute, then governments are legitimate institutions and taxes are perfectly good and moral.
Whoa! That is a non sequitur! How did you arrive from one thing to the other?
Published: April 19, 2007 11:52 AM
Björn Lundahl
Dennis
“My comment was not an attempt to illustrate or imply the correctness of utilitarianism compared to natural law theory. I only attempted to demonstrate that Mises reached his conclusion regarding the primacy of private property in the means of production using economic, and not ethical, analysis.”
Yes and a very good point.
“Moreover, the conclusions and laws of praxeology and economics are independent of ethics.”
You might be interested to read this:
Stephan Kinsella:
“Interesting how Rothbard talks about possible extensions of praxeology as well as "axiomatics," the logical-deductive approach of Hoppe that is compatible with, if not a type of, praxeology.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005430.asp
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 19, 2007 12:12 PM
Dennis
Björn,
Thank you for the response. You may have misunderstood what I was attempting to say with my comment “Moreover, the conclusions and laws of praxeology and economics are independent of ethics.”
The point I was attempting to make is that the laws of economics, e.g., the law of diminishing marginal utility and the laws of supply and demand, do not depend on a specific theory of ethics. Whether one is a supporter of natural law, a utilitarian, or a socialist is not material; economic laws (like the laws of physics) are valid whatever one's system of ethics.
Published: April 19, 2007 3:19 PM
Björn Lundahl
Dennis
Yes, and a true statement as well.
Björn
Published: April 19, 2007 3:28 PM
TLWP Sam
Wealth, markets, property rights, etc., and government are not compatible? When then are Oligarchies/Plutocracies? And what of the 'Iron Law of Oligarchies?
Published: April 19, 2007 5:53 PM
Björn Lundahl
Some critical replies regarding Hans-Hermann Hoppe´s ethical proof.
The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, By Hans-Hermann Hoppe, page 240 and 241:
“Amazingly, Friedman, Yeager, Steel, Walters, Virkkala and Jones believe I must have overlooked the fact that all existing societies are less than fully libertarian (that slavery, the gulag, or that husbands own wifes, etc), and that this somehow invalidates my argument. Yet obviously, I would hardly have written this article if it had been my opinion that libertarianism were already prevalent. Thus, it should have been clear that it was precisely this non-libertarian character of reality which motivated me to show something quite different: why such a state of affairs cannot be justified. Citing facts like slavery as counter-example is roughly on par with refuting the proof that 1+1=2 by pointing out that someone has just come up with 3 as an answer – and about as ridiculous.”
Page 243 and 244:
“Rasmussen is different. He has fewer difficulties recognizing the nature of my argument, but then asks me in turn “So what?” Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway? Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that it was 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again the answer is obvious: For one thing, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it does not: for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument.
Rasmussen seems to think that if I could get an “ought” derived from somewhere (something that Yeager claims I am trying to do, though I explicitly denied this), then things would be improved. But this is simply an illusory hope. For even if Rasmussen had proven the proposition that one “ought” to be reasonable and “ought” to act according to the libertarian property ethic this would be just another propositional argument. It could no more assure that people will do what they ought to do than my proof can guarantee that they will do what is justified. So where is the difference; and what is all the fuss about? There is and remains a difference between establishing a truth claim and installing a desire to act upon the truth – with “ought” or without it. It is great, for sure, if a proof can install this desire. But even if it does not, this can hardly be held against it. And it also does not subtract anything from its merit if in some or even many cases a few raw utilitarian assertions prove more successful in persuading of libertarianism than it can do. A proof is still a proof: and socio-psychology remains socio-psychology.”
“Amazingly, Friedman, Yeager, Steel, Walters, Virkkala and Jones believe I must have overlooked the fact that all existing societies are less than fully libertarian (that slavery, the gulag, or that husbands own wifes, etc), and that this somehow invalidates my argument.”
Björn: I wonder if Friedman also did overlook the fact that at least during the 60s, central bankers around the world did not either believe in monetarism and if this very part of reality by itself invalidated a case for monetarism? Or, for example, if Karl Marx too missed the fact that the world was not a communist or socialistic one when he wrote Das Kapital or did he hope that his “proofs” could change the world? Ludwig von Mises too might have, when he wrote his masterpiece Human Action, missed the sad fact that Austrian Economics did not prevail and that he should, therefore, have considered not writing it? This reply by Friedman, Yeager, Steel, Walters, Virkkala and Jones was surprisingly silly.
Rasmussen. “But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back.”
Björn: This “question” could also serve as an “answer” to any argument for anything and why should we not be reasonable?
“Rasmussen seems to think that if I could get an “ought” derived from somewhere.”
Björn: If everyone or at least if most people believed that the proof is a valid proof, it would be almost impossible for governments to act against it and ignore it or should they “argue” “we know that our activity is criminal but we believe it is good for society anyway. We are criminals but so what?”
In other words, in practise an “is” can, in such a case, therefore be derived to also be an “ought.”
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 20, 2007 6:03 AM
TLWP Sam
Interesting, Björn Lundahl, can I find the 'x' factor as to where I can mathematically prove that '1 + 1 can equal 3'?
Possibility 1:
a: (1 + 1)x = 3x
b: dividing both side by x
c: (1 + 1) = 3
----------
Possibility 2:
a: (1 + 1)x = 3x
b: make x = 0
c: (1 + 1) * 0 = 3 * 0
d: 0 = 0
e: for the moment when x = 0, (1 + 1) did equal three.
==========
QED? Or 'dodgy as a 9 dollar note' mathematics? ;)
Published: April 20, 2007 8:53 AM
Björn Lundahl
I will post this again as I have added the principle of democracy in my comment.
The principles of utilitarianism and democracy are destructive.
Utilitarianism means that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Intellectually the principle lets the door stand wide open for the use of physical violence and theft against people which happens to belong to the lesser number. If we grasp a state of things where the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people exists in using physical violence and theft everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) against all those people that happened to belong to the lesser numbers, the human race would quickly perish.
The principle of democracy means that a majority of a number of people has the right to use physical violence and theft against the minority, just because of the fact that they belong to a majority. Intellectually this principle also lets the door stand wide open for the use of physical violence and theft against people who happens to belong to a minority. If we grasp a state of things where majorities of people exists everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) and all those majorities use physical violence and theft against all those people that happened to belong to the minority, the human race would quickly perish.
As we have seen, the principle of utilitarianism and the principle of democracy if followed by all groups of people in all places would lead to human destruction and this, therefore, proves that the principles are destructive. Any crime could be done in the name of utilitarianism and in the name of democracy such as murder, theft, rape, slavery etc. The lesser number of people and the minority would always be at the mercy of the greatest number or the majority.
Private groups of people in society are therefore, naturally, not allowed to commit crimes in the name of utilitarianism and in the name of democracy.
The state has a “legal right” to commit crimes and the state nearly, always does it in the name of utilitarianism and democracy.
In the name of utilitarianism Hitler could have justified all the murdering of the Jews that he made. He probably, also, thought that he by doing those crimes achieved the greatest happiness for the greatest number of Germans.
The Nazi party was also democratically elected and received 37, 4% of the German votes in 1932 election.
http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-party-2?method=26&initiator=answertip:more
Let us not forget:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-309490343652240839&q=hitler+jews
Video “The Rape of Nanking”:
http://video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=4920138942953644691
Or, alternatively, as Rothbard wrote in his book For a New Liberty:
“Let us consider a stark example: Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation-so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: "While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads, achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads." The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon nonaggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders—depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure—would not influence such a libertarian, the "absolutist" libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being "doctrinaire," to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty2.asp
Naturally, the principle of democracy could also in Rothbard’s example justify the killing of those Indians as they belonged to a relatively small minority.
If anything should be exterminated, it is the principles of utilitarianism and democracy.
The right path to follow is instead:
The Ethics of Liberty:
Hesselberg continues:
“But a social order is not possible unless man is able to conceive what it is, and what its advantages are, and also conceive those norms of conduct which are necessary to its establishment and preservation, namely, respect for another's person and for his rightful possessions, which is the substance of justice. . . . But justice is the product of reason, not the passions. And justice is the necessary support of the social order; and the social order is necessary to man's well-being and happiness. If this is so, the norms of justice must control and regulate the passions, and not vice versa.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp
Or in other words and in a more rigid form: "that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else".
I have written an essay about normative principles. Please go to:
http://normativeprinciples.blogspot.com/2006/12/normative-principles-pure-free-market_10.html
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 21, 2007 2:29 AM
TLWP Sam
I'm sorry, Björn Lundahl, but your last post was terrible. Utilitarianists seeks the greatest amount happiness. Sounds good enough. But what if someone enjoys hurting and killing people? Uh-oh! Democracies seek to allow leaders to get elected and rules to be approved through getting the majority to approve of it all. But what if the majority have a hated minority and the majority pass laws to hurt and kill that minority? Uh-oh!
C'mon. Without any moral decency every 'ism' or 'archy' is going to be destructive and brutal. What if a Monarch decides to rule the world and forces his/her subjects to comply or else? What if easy gun ownership allows the minority to go on a shooting spree? What if some Capitalist decide to profit through force, fraud? C'mon.
Published: April 21, 2007 5:31 AM
Björn Lundahl
I think that you miss the point. Are you not aware of the fact that states all over the world violate individual rights all the time and that they do it in the name of utilitarianism or as they call it “for the common good” and in the name of democracy? Have individuals or group of individuals the same “rights”? That is the point. It is not about what individuals “can do or are capable of doing” but what they are allowed not to do and that the same principle should be applied to all humans.
If you think that this point of view “sucks”, well that is your problem and not mine.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 21, 2007 7:01 AM
Björn Lundahl
Regarding government property or so called public property, this should be emphasised. From the book Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, page 1276, by Murray Rothbard:
“4. The Myth of “Public” Ownership
We all hear a great deal about “public” ownership. Whenever the government owns property, in fact, or operates an enterprise, it is referred to as “publicly owned.” When natural resources are sold or given to private enterprise, we learn that the “public domain” has been “given away” to narrow private interests. The inference is that when the government owns anything, “we”—all members of the public—own equal shares of that property. Contrast to this broad sweep the narrow, petty interests of mere “private” ownership.
We have seen that, since a socialist economic system could not calculate economically, a die-hard socialist must be prepared to witness the disappearance of a large part of the earth’s population, with only primitive subsistence remaining for the survivors. Still, a man who identifies government with public ownership might be content to spread the area of government ownership despite the loss of efficiency or social utility it entails.
The identity itself, however, is completely fallacious. Ownership is the ultimate control and direction of a resource. The owner of a property is its ultimate director, regardless of legal fictions to the contrary. In the purely free society, resources so abundant as to serve as general conditions of human welfare would remain unowned. Scarce resources, on the other hand, would be owned on the following principles: self-ownership of each person by himself; self-ownership of a person’s created or transformed property; first ownership of previously unowned land by its first user or transformer. Government ownership means simply that the ruling officialdom owns the property. The top officials are the ones who direct the use of the property, and they therefore do the owning. The “public” owns no part of the property. Any citizen who doubts this may try to appropriate for his own individual use his aliquot part of “public” property and then try to argue his case in court. It may be objected that individual stockholders of corporations cannot do this either, e.g., by the rules of the company, a General Motors stockholder is not allowed to seize a car in lieu of cash dividends or in exchange for his stock. Yet stockholders do own their company, and this example precisely proves our point. For the stockholder can contract out of his company; he can sell his shares of General Motors’ stock to someone else. The subject of a government cannot contract out of that government; he cannot sell his “shares” in the post office because he has no such shares. As F.A. Harper has succinctly stated: “The corollary of the right of ownership is the right of disownership. So if I cannot sell a thing, it is evident that I do not really own it.”[18]
Whatever the form of government, the rulers are the true owners of the property. However, in a democracy or, in the long run under any form of government, the rulers are transitory. They can always lose an election or be overthrown by a coup d’etat. Hence, no government official regards himself as more than a transitory owner. As a result, while a private owner, secure in his property and owning its capital value, plans the use of his resource over a long period of time, the government official must milk the property as quickly as he can, since he has no security of ownership. Further, even the entrenched civil servant must do the same, for no government official can sell the capitalized value of his property, as private owners can. In short, government officials own the use of resources, but not their capital value (except in the case of the “private property” of a hereditary monarch). When only the current use can be owned, but not the resource itself, there will quickly ensue uneconomic exhaustion of the resources, since it will be to no one’s benefit to conserve it over a period of time and to every owner’s advantage to use it up as quickly as possible. In the same way, government officials will consume their property as rapidly as possible.
It is curious that almost all writers parrot the notion that private owners, possessing time preference, must take the “short view,” while only government officials can take the “long view” and allocate property to advance the “general welfare.” The truth is exactly the reverse. The private individual, secure in his property and in his capital resource, can take the long view, for he wants to maintain the capital value of his resource. It is the government official who must take and run, who must plunder the property while he is still in command.[19]”
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap17b.asp#4._Myth_Public_
Ownership
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 22, 2007 6:03 AM
Björn Lundahl
To avoid misunderstanding I also emphasise this:
“Ownership is the ultimate control and direction of a resource”, wrote Rothbard.
This, obviously, is in accordance with my above statement:
“Even the lonely Robinson Crusoe on his desert island had control (and a natural disposition to) of his own body that is self-ownership in his own person. He also had control (and a disposition to) of the things he made out of nature and the land he acted on. Property rights are discovered by reason and recognize this fact that man cannot exist without those rights. If Crusoe was not allowed to own anything, he would not be allowed to act and therefore not, either, to exist. It is a logical fact derived from our reality.”
So, if no persons own anything, no person controls anything, not himself and not anything else and the human race would not exist.
This is also the very meaning with my above statement:
“Why must anybody own anything?
“In accordance with our objective test to find out if something is a condition for something else, we grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all:
“The existence of property rights”:
In a world without any property rights nobody would be able to do anything, since nobody has the right to control anything. Not even themselves.
This question is not only a contradiction it is also silly. You ask a question which means that you control yourselves (natural disposition), that is owning yourself. The other contradiction is that if nobody would own anything, nobody would be able to hinder anyone to own anything either since they would otherwise have an invalid control (having the disposition to) of everyone else, that is having an invalid ownership to everybody else (see below about valid property rights in your own person).
Ownership itself is, therefore, an objective condition for the preservation of human life.”
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 22, 2007 6:42 AM
TLWP Sam
Actually Björn Lundahl in the case of property rights, self ownership and 'Robison Crusoe'. I'd have to say that property rights must really then mean to have a claim to ownership to which other people can abide by or aggress with. A person all alone on an island can have as much or as little property rights/ownership as he/she likes but it's kinda pointless. Only when another person arrives on the island does it then become meaningful to have property rights.
Published: April 22, 2007 8:57 AM
Björn Lundahl
TLWP
“A person all alone on an island can have as much or as little property rights/ownership as he/she likes but it's kinda pointless. Only when another person arrives on the island does it then become meaningful to have property rights.”
As I wrote that even alone on “his” desert island Robinson Crusoe had ownership of property that is control of property or in other words as Hans-Hermann Hoppe puts it (The Ethics and Economics of Private Property):
”property ownership means the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces.”
http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf
But I agree that this is only an illustration, and property rights that are enforced will only be meaningful, as you say when another person later arrives on the island.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 22, 2007 10:02 AM
Björn Lundahl
TLWP
Robinson Crusoe on his desert island is only an illustration and an intellectual explanatory tool. Rothbard used Crusoe on his desert island as an intellectual model for explaining economics and ethics. I think it serves its purpose very well.
In school I found Robinson Crouse as very exciting and his situation on the island was easy to grasp. I also thought that he was very clever and inventive.
I guess this also goes in line with the principle of Ockham's razor:
Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness or parsimony).
http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor?method=26&initiator=answertip:more
Rothbard often referred to the principle of Ockham's razor. It is a very good principle as well.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 22, 2007 12:48 PM
RogerM
TLWP:"Only when another person arrives on the island does it then become meaningful to have property rights."
I think you misunderstand anarchism. They don't use words like "rights" and "property" in the normal English sense. Anarchists mean something completely different. They have their own vocabulary. You're absolutely correct about property rights in the context of normal English speaking people.
In arnarchism, rights are equivalent to physical laws, such as such as the law of gravity, that have existed for as long as the universe has existed. Those laws were in operation from the beginning, even though we didn't recognize them. Howevr, unlike the physical universe on which the laws of physics could operate from the beginning, the principle of property operated before any man came along for it to operate on. Supposedly, reason can discover those laws, just as scientific inquiry discovered the laws of physics.
As you're discovering, real discussion with people who have their own private definitions for words can be very frustrating. When you discuss property rights using the normal definition of them, anarchists always respond with their definition. It would be nice if they would be honest and call their concept something other than property rights, for it's more like a economic version of the Force from Star Wars. It's more religious than scientific.
Published: April 22, 2007 5:55 PM
RogerM
Bjorn:"...even alone on “his” desert island Robinson Crusoe had ownership of property that is control of property..."
Of course he did. There was no one to challenge his ownership. The example if trivial beyond belief.
Published: April 22, 2007 5:57 PM
Dave
Dishonest RogerM is back I see.
As usual he is making accusations that have no grounding in reality, and instead makes claims based on his own prejudices.
See, RogerM? I can do it too--post verbiage that is insulting and carries no substance, yet seem like I am saying something really profound.
I don't like people who dishonestly accuse others of dishonesty, hence my "uncvil" comments. I operate on the principle " a discivil comment deserves one in return."
Why don't you read my earlier posts and attack them? I don't mean your usual empty verbiage, but an actual philosophical discussion that adresses issues, not prejudices. (See? It's not fun to be attacked in this manner is it?) SO STOP DOING IT!!!!
Regards,
Dave
Published: April 22, 2007 9:38 PM
RogerM
Dave: "See? It's not fun to be attacked in this manner is it?"
Actually, I enjoy it. I like to read anarchists setting themselves on fire in verbal pyrotechnics.
Dave:"Why don't you read my earlier posts and attack them?"
When you write somethng worth responding to, I'll respond.
Published: April 22, 2007 9:46 PM
Dave
"I like to read anarchists setting themselves on fire in verbal pyrotechnics."
Ditto! RogerM. Also, I note that you did not deny that this is what you are doing. Now, explain how the anarchists use language different than "everybody else," something you have never explained.
"When you write somethng worth responding to, I'll respond."
Really? Having said that, why don't you explain why what I posted earlier in this same blog is not worth responding to? This is not without irony, because you responded to the "flame" attack I just delievered which is actually very easy to respond to, yet you never responded to my much calmer, more intellectual posts. Very interesting....
Regards (despite our differences),
Dave
Published: April 22, 2007 10:52 PM
Björn Lundahl
Bjorn:"...even alone on “his” desert island Robinson Crusoe had ownership of property that is control of property..."
RogerM Of course he did. There was no one to challenge his ownership. The example if trivial beyond belief.
Björn Obviously you have been questioning this all the time as you wrote “Mankind existed a long time before anyone "discovered" property.”
If our supposed Robinson Crusoe cannot live in the situation described, without owning property mankind cannot either. Robinson Crusoe might not be aware of his ownership but so what? Who has said that he must be aware of it?
I write this not because I believe that Roger will be convinced of the truthfulness of a libertarian ethic as he never will, but to illustrate examples for other people to study and to understand that a libertarian ethic is a superior ethic.
It is also quite fun!
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 23, 2007 1:37 AM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM “It would be nice if they (anarchists) would be honest and call their concept something other than property rights, for it's more like a economic version of the Force from Star Wars. It's more religious than scientific.”
Björn Look what Roger is trying to say now! He is trying to say that anarcho-capitalism is based on some religion. This is quite funny as it is Roger who is religious. I myself do not believe in god.
Roger wants “God” as a starting point in an ethical system!
Let me quote from a debate in another thread happened recently between Roger and myself:
December 12, 2006
Why I'm a Libertarian -- or, Why Libertarianism is Beautiful
RogerM “When I wrote that natural law must be discovered, not created, I meant that it must be discovered using reason and starting from a sound foundation. Original natural law did that by beginning with God and assuming that God intended his creation to survive and prosper. Original natural law saw God as the necessary starting point because only God has authority over mankind.
I claimed that Rothbard/Hoppe's system was fabricated because they didn't begin with God, but with man, who has no authority over mankind. They created, or fabricated a new system because they changed the starting point. A false starting point caused them to arrive at false conclusions about the state. That's what is fabricated.”
Posted by: RogerM at December 16, 2006 11:38 AM
RogerM “I claimed that Rothbard/Hoppe's system was fabricated because they didn't begin with God.”
Björn If you want to defend a rational ethic and to be “scientific”, you should not mix that purpose with religion.
It is nothing wrong in being religious, but to have “God” as a starting point as a defence of a rational ethic is irrational. You must understand that God’s existence is not at all rationally proved.
It would really be a fabrication to have “God” as a starting point in a rational ethical system.
Why not leave out all the “arguments” and instead only refer to the bible?
So here we can reach a conclusion. What, really bothers you is that Rothbard and Hoppe left out “God” as the starting point in their ethical system.
Well, you should accept that as religion is not the topic, rational ethics is (between you and me). As I have said, the foundation of a rational ethic cannot either be satisfied with a starting point such as “the welfare of mankind”. It is vague, subjective and completely nonsense. Anything could be “derived from that nonsense.” Nothing could be proved! That is the point!
To argue that Rothbard and Hoppe are wrong because their starting point in their ethical system started with the concept of self-ownership and not with “God” or “the welfare of mankind” is really too much. Is this a joke or what?
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006013.asp
I have in above mentioned thread accused Roger to be just dishonest. He knows this and he thinks that he has a point in trying to, in this thread, say the same.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 23, 2007 6:14 AM
adi
I state again that one may have different theorems in his ethical system if axioms on which system is based are different compared to other systems.
Björn wants to have a ethical system in which ultimate justification for private property is man's self-ownership. Even man living in autarchy as an isolated individual has need to follow property rights since they are a priori true.
RogerM wants to have a God as a centrepiece on his ethical system. Man is bound to accept ethical norms because God as an ultimate dictator has decreed so...
I offer different interpretation: welfare of mankind as an objective fact. Humans have adopted those norms which are bound (or likely) to lead to continuation of our race. At this point you need to make value judgements; there are exists people who would like to see us dead so that planets ecosystem could exists without interference from humans.
I am Austrian economist because I believe that methodological subjectivism is only relevant way to study human action. Catallactics and other sub-fields of economics are interesting. There is no need to argue if we all share almost same objectives.
Published: April 23, 2007 7:38 AM
RogerM
Bjorn:"I myself do not believe in god."
A great person once said that people who abandon belief in God don't believe in nothing; they'll believe in anything. I think atheistic anarchists are on the verge of worshipping property rights, since they have made them an absolute. I might parody anarchists by writing "In the beginnning, property rights created the heavens and the earth."
Bjorn:"Roger wants “God” as a starting point in an ethical system!"
God was the starting point for natural law writers for over one thousand years. Rothbard broke from that traditon, while pretending to follow it. The great modern philosophers understood that without God as the starting point, morality could not exist. Do Rothbard and Hoppe address the concerns of those philosophers, such as Sartre and Camus, or those who preceded them such as Nietzsche and many others? No. They act as if those men had never written anything. Yet morality was their specialty while that of Rothbard and Hoppe was economics. If you know nothing of the writings of Nietzsche, Sartre, or Camus, Rothbard and Hoppe's "scientific ethical" system will win you heart. But if you have read just a little bit of Nietzsche, Sartre, or Camus, Rothbard and Hoppe will seem almost naive in their search in the dark for a "scientific ethic."
Published: April 23, 2007 9:46 AM
RogerM
adi: "I offer different interpretation: welfare of mankind as an objective fact."
I think you're following Mises in your approach, which I like. Mises didn't seem to care about ethical considerations, just what would promote the welfare of mankind. I think we should stick with Mises's approach when discussing economic issues.
adi:"RogerM wants to have a God as a centrepiece on his ethical system. Man is bound to accept ethical norms because God as an ultimate dictator has decreed so...
adi:"RogerM wants to have a God as a centrepiece on his ethical system. Man is bound to accept ethical norms because God as an ultimate dictator has decreed so..."
That's pretty much correct. It's not that I want God to be the centerpiece, it's that I find myself constrained by the logic of over 1,000 years of natural law writing on the subject, as well as the writings of the great atheist philosophers I mentioned above. Bjorn claims that I'm being irrational, but I have 1,000 years of the most brilliant writers in humanity on the subject of ethics backing me up, all of whom assert that Bjorn, Rothbard and Hoppe are the irrational ones.
Published: April 23, 2007 9:53 AM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM “Bjorn claims that I'm being irrational, but I have 1,000 years of the most brilliant writers in humanity on the subject of ethics backing me up, all of whom assert that Bjorn, Rothbard and Hoppe are the irrational ones.”
So what is exactly this “brilliance” Roger is talking about? What he has written is only about his misinterpretations and nothing more.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 23, 2007 1:30 PM
RogerM
Bjorn: "What he has written is only about his misinterpretations and nothing more."
I'm always open to learning new things. Show me where I've wrongly interpreted the natural law scholars, or Nietzsche, Camus or Sartre and I'll gladly reconsider my position.
Published: April 23, 2007 1:44 PM
Björn Lundahl
Normative principles
A pure free market is based upon the axiomatic principle "that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else".
This is the very principle which the courts and the legal system should follow.
How do we know that this principle is an axiomatic principle?
I quote from the book “For a New Liberty”, written by Murray Rothbard, page 45:
“THE CENTRAL THRUST of libertarian thought, then, is to oppose any and all aggression against the property rights of individuals in their own persons and in the material objects they have voluntarily acquired. While individual and gangs of criminals are of course opposed, there is nothing unique here to the libertarian creed, since almost all persons and schools of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and property”.
http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty3.asp
So, generally, all persons and schools of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and property.
Above statement is an answer why the principle is an axiomatic one. But this is not the only reason. There are rational ones as well.
Life as a value is an axiomatic value that no one in a debate logically can deny as this value is the very condition for the debate and the participators existence.
I quote from the book “The Ethics of Liberty”, written by Murray Rothbard, page 29:
“It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality). In reply; we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation. Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom”.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/six.asp
This is also confirmed with Ludwig von Mises statement in his book, “Human Action”, page 11:
“We may say that action is the manifestation of a man's will.”
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp
Which principles are an objective condition for preserving the human race and human life?
To objective examine if something is a condition for something else, we have to mentally grasp a state of things, where the supposed condition doesn’t exist anywhere and at all.
For example, if we suppose that the existence of oxygen is a condition for the preservation of the human race, we grasp a state of things, where oxygen doesn’t exist anywhere on earth. If we would let some oxygen exist somewhere on earth, then we couldn’t make a valid conclusion. We wouldn’t know if oxygen were a condition for preserving human life. To make a valid conclusion we have to grasp where oxygen doesn’t exist anywhere and at all. Under this condition we can, naturally, conclude that no human life would exist. We can, because of this reason conclude that oxygen is a condition for the preservation of the human race. We can also conclude that when we objectively examined as we just did, if oxygen was a condition for preserving human life, we would be bound to take under consideration the whole reality and not only some parts of it. We wouldn’t let oxygen exist somewhere on earth, because if we had done so, we wouldn’t have grasped the effects, under consideration, to the whole situation (the whole reality), and our conclusion would therefore have been invalid.
We can only make one choice, either we take under consideration some parts of reality or we take under consideration the whole reality. Reason and logic tell us that if we take under consideration the whole reality, this will reflect the truth, because we can’t consider anything more absolute and perfect. This procedure is an axiomatic procedure.
Is “the principle of physical violence” a condition for the preservation of the human race?
To examine this principle under consideration of what has already been said about the procedure of finding out conditions, we have to grasp a state of things where the principle of none physical violence doesn’t exist anywhere and at all. If we let some people live by the principle of none violence, a procedure which we have just discarded, then we wouldn’t make a valid conclusion. Logically we are bound to let all people live by the principle of physical violence. Because of this fact the human race and life would immediately exterminate.
We can therefore conclude “that the principle of physical violence” is a condition for the preservation of human extermination and that “the principle of none physical violence” is the condition for human preservation.
We can also conclude, that human life wouldn’t exist, if the principle of “not to have the right to use threat of physical violence” didn’t exist.
If we grasp a state of things where this principle doesn’t exist, anywhere and at all, everyone would be threatening everyone else. Nobody would be able to live and fulfil their needs and dreams. Action to preserve ones life would be an impossible mission.
Not anybody would dare to act because if this anybody did, someone would always be threatening this anybody. A perfect static situation would occur and the human race would immediately exterminate.
Our conclusion will therefore be that “the principle of threat of physical violence” is a condition for the human extermination, and “the principle of none threat of physical violence”, is a condition for the preservation of human life.
As life is an axiomatic value which we want to preserve, it is also logically true that we axiomatically want to preserve the principle which is a condition for life, namely “the principle of none physical violence (including not to have the right to use threat of physical violence)”.
Let us now examine if “the right to steal” is a condition of the preservation of human life.
If we want to define what objective theft is, we will have to define property rights, based on an axiomatic Justice.
If we consider what has already been said in this document, we can also understand that an axiomatic Justice is those principles which are a condition for the preservation of the human race. Unjust are those principles which are a condition for the preservation of the human extermination.
Just property rights are, therefore, those property rights which are conditions for the preservation human life. Unjust are those property rights which are conditions for the preservation of human extermination.
In order to survive, man cannot live alone in an environment which is free from physical violence. To survive and prosper man has to use his reason and energy to transform nature into useful things. Man lives and prospers because he is a creative animal.
We can therefore conclude that creation in itself is a condition for the preservation of the human race.
We can therefore conclude that Just property rights are those rights which preserve man’s creative efforts.
In order to define these property rights we will have to grasp a state of things when man, for the first time, enters this world of ours. This because we want to define original property rights based on Justice. In order to define property rights based on Justice, we don’t want either to be deluded by existing potential unjust property rights. Only, in a state of things where no man, yet, has owned anything, we don’t take the risk of being deluded.
When the first man, for example, broke a branch and made himself a bow, the title of property of this creation was also his. Why does the title of the property (the bow) belong to this man? Because man is a purposeful agent and if man doesn’t own his original creation and the results of his actions, he won’t act.
Let us examine if the last statement is objective and true.
We examine and grasp a state of things, in accordance with the mentioned procedure to examine objectively if something is a condition for something else, through not letting the examined principle be existent anywhere at all.
We grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere at all: “the originators right to the objects which he through action, has created”. Everyone would be stealing anyone’s creation and the human race would immediately exterminate.
This proves that man is a purposeful agent and when his motivation exterminates, he stops acting at once.
This is also the objective reason why theft is a condition for the preservation of human extermination, and that the principle of none theft, the originators creation in accordance with the above reasoning, is the condition for the preservation of human life.
Let us now define Justly owned property rights to land.
Man doesn’t create land but he acts and creates on, in and out of land.
Also here we examine a state of things when man for the first time, enters this world. When, then, the first man enters the untouched land, and creates by action on or in or out of land, then this part of the land which he has now touched, belongs to him. Why the first man? If the first man doesn’t have the property right to this part of the land, nor does individual number two, three, four, five etc have the right to the land, and while they are waiting for the last man who hasn’t yet entered this world, man will quickly perish.
If we grasp a state of things, where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all (this objective test is, of course, in line with our reasoning about such a procedure for finding out a condition for something else):
“When someone creates by action on or out of land, then this part which he has now touched belongs to him”.
This would mean that everyone would be stealing anyone’s Justly owned land, that is as soon as someone starts creating by action on or in or out of land, someone else would have the right to the land in question and the human race would immediately exterminate.
We can conclude that the condition for the extermination of the human race is to preserve the principle “the right to steal the land which the first man has touched and created on or in or out”. Our conclusion will also therefore only be that the condition for the preservation of the human race is that no man ever should have such a right.
Why must anybody own anything?
In accordance with our objective test to find out if something is a condition for something else, we grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all:
“The existence of property rights”:
In a world without any property rights nobody would be able to do anything, since nobody has the right to control anything. Not even themselves (see below about property rights in your own person).
This question is not only a contradiction it is also silly. You ask a question which means that you control yourselves (natural disposition), that is owning yourself (see below the excellent writing of Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The other contradiction is that if nobody would own anything, nobody would be able to hinder anyone to own anything either since they would otherwise have an invalid control (having the disposition to) of everyone else, that is having an invalid ownership to everybody else (see below about valid property rights in your own person).
Ownership itself is, therefore, an objective condition for the preservation of human life.
Now, then, we haven’t ended our definition of Justly owned property rights until we have analyzed the right to make contracts. We will have to examine the right to make contracts, because, sooner or later the owners of Justly owned property will trade with each other. Sooner or later disputes will occur among the trading partners and then, we will have to know, the rights the trading partners have to the property and which the dispute among them is all about.
Some economist argues that the Justification for the right to make contracts is that the right promotes economic prosperity.
It is true that most of us want economic prosperity, but this is not an axiomatic Justification for the right o make contracts. “Economic prosperity” is not an axiomatic value. As we want to be objective, this argument is not good enough.
Some individuals argue that trading partners have an “agreement” and this is the reason why contracts should be legally binding. Why should such an agreement be legally binding if one of the partners wants to change his mind? Why shouldn’t we respect such a change of man’s will? Why should an earlier manifestation of a man’s will be considered proper and Just and a later manifestation of a changed will be regarded as improper and unjust? Where is the objective Justification? Where is the logical point of view? To argue that the trading partners “knew what they got into and that is why “agreements” should be legally binding”, is, of course, nonsense. It only proves that agreements are artificial constructions which haven’t anything to do with axiomatic principles founded in the nature of things.
The Justification for binding contracts is not that they are “agreements or for that reason are contracts”, but for the reason that we can derive, because of them, Justly owned property titles. “The right to make contracts” is not a right in itself which can objectively be defended as such, but is an expression which symbolizes the interpretations to derive Justly owned property rights and if theft has been done or not.
This is the title transfer theory of contracts, see also Murray Rothbard´s excellent book “The Ethics of Liberty”, chapter 19:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp
On what base can this interpretation be related to contracts and Justly owned property titles? This we can conclude because of the reason that contracts only confirm exchange of original Just titles to property (in accordance with above definitions of original Just titles to property), that is the transferring of Just property titles between the trading partners.
The reason that a property title will be transferred from one person to another is that the original property owner has renounced his Justly owned property title to be transferred to another person, and we can only, because of this, make the interpretation that the property title has been transferred. In other words, it is the renunciation of the Justly owned property title in itself, which is the very cause to the ending of the original property owner’s title to the property and the transferring of the title to the new owner, which the original property owner has renounced his property title to.
Logic and reason tells us what has been renounced and transferred, in fact, also is renounced and transferred. For what has been done cannot be undone.
Logically a man cannot renounce his right to self-ownership, since a man in his very nature controls his own mind and body (natural disposition), that is, he is a natural self-owner of his own will and person (having a free will) and he will still be so even if he has “tried” to renounce his natural self-ownership to another person. He cannot renounce something which is a biological and physical fact of his very own life and which will never, as long as he lives, leave him.
In other words, we cannot interpret with the help of reason that the supposed slave’s natural self-ownership has been transferred to another person which the supposed slave has tried to renounce his self-ownership to.
We can therefore conclude that this fact of natural self-ownership, always, logically, neutralizes every attempt to renounce it.
Another logical confirmation of this fact is that when we in this document concluded that none physical violence and none theft preserves human life, we wouldn’t make such a conclusion if we didn’t control our minds and bodies. We wouldn’t be able to make such a conclusion, since we wouldn’t control ourselves and either would life exist, in a state of things, when everyone had the legal right to fully use his self-ownership, that is, in other words, in a state of things where physical violence and theft is none existent at all.
In regard to what has now been said we can conclude that it is objectively true that every man is a Just property owner in his own right. Because of this, slave contracts should not be legally binding, as their existence is only a” legalization” of physical violence. If we would neglect this fact, we would violate the principle of self-ownership and be using physical violence and also, because of this, violating the condition for the preservation of human life.
It is true that the possibility to make contracts and to trade is the very foundation for specialization and spurs creative processes which accounts for a very large part of man’s creative efforts. To “legally” hinder the enforcement of contracts and therefore also trade, would not only mean extreme poverty, but also death to most individuals on earth.
The enforcement of contracts, in accordance with our definition, we can conclude, is the condition for preserving these creative processes among individuals. Other definitions of contracts, which are only some sorts of agreements, (really, only different grades of slave contracts) should not, as have been pointed out, be legally binding. These illegitimate contracts include only those destructive seeds that violates the condition for the preservation of the human race, namely the “principle of none physical violence and none theft”, and because of this fact alone, they don’t include those productive processes which account for a very large part of man’s creative efforts.
We have now ended our definition of Justly owned property rights.
We have established that human life is preserved by the condition “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”.
Our conclusion will therefore be that the principle “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is synonymous with our definition “that no man shall have the right to violate the rightful ownership in person and property”.
We can establish that the absolute and perfect condition for the human extermination is the none existence of the principle “that no man shall have the right to violate the rightful ownership in person and property”, and we can also conclude that the absolute and perfect condition to preserve the human race is the none existence of any violations.
Isolated violations of the principle are therefore absolutely perfect, destructive actions which undermine the condition and the preservation of the human race, since the very existence of these destructive actions deviate from the absolutely perfect condition for the preservation of the human race.
As life is an axiomatic value which we want to preserve, it is also logically true that we axiomatically want to preserve the principle which is a condition for life, namely “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” or in other words,” that no man shall have the right to violate the rightful ownership in person and property”.
Alternatively, an axiomatic end (human life) is preserved by an axiomatic mean (“that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”).
As we cannot, logically, deny life, as long as we chose living, we cannot either, logically, deny its axiomatic condition i.e. its axiomatic mean.
If we take under consideration what has been concluded in this document, we can also conclude that another meaning of the principle of none violations, is that the principle also brings an absolutely perfect opportunity for the survival of human life. This means that the principle brings a totally perfect opportunity for the survival of all human beings.
As it is true that the principle is a totally perfect condition and a totally perfect preservation of human life, it also logically follows that the principle brings a totally perfect opportunity for the survival of all human beings.
This can also be proved by the fact that everyone’s violation of the principle (total physical violence and theft) brings an absolutely perfect impossibility for the survival of any human beings.
In the “philosophical debate” Liberty, as all values, is seen as a subjective value. This opinion may seem as a confirmation of the reality. There are vast political values. Liberty seems to be only one of these subjective values. But it is a superficial believes.
The reason for this is that we have established that everyone’s violation of the principle brings an absolutely perfect impossibility for the survival of any human beings. This means that we all would be, by objective means coerced to die that is objectively coerced to not “value and wanting to preserve our own lives”.
Isolated violations of the principle are totally destructive because they totally undermine by objective coercion our possibilities and opportunities to “value and wanting to preserve our own lives”.
Ethical conclusions in this document, I believe, are in agreement with some ethical conclusions that the giant Hans-Hermann Hoppe has done.
Please read some of his excellent writing from the book “The Ethics and Economics of Private Property”:
http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf
And to:
ON THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION OF THE ETHICS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf
Principles derived from the ethics concluded in this document, are exposed in the masterpiece that I have already mentioned and that is “The Ethics of Liberty” written by Murray Rothbard, please read his book:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Remarks:
“All human beings act by virtue of their existence and their nature as human beings. We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human.”
Murray Rothbard, “Fundamentals of human action” (praxeology)
An axiomatic Justice
In the political debate all political parties proposes some different ends (values or goals).
These ends or, alternatively, values are subjective such as “building more motorways”, “women’s liberation”, “social equality”, “social security”, “prosperity”, “making America great again”, “combating inflation”, “joining the EU” etc.
To accomplish those goals there are also debates on how to achieve them (debates about the means). The means are almost always subjective i.e. the ends can be achieved in different ways.
To realize an axiomatic Justice I have chosen, in my above essay “Normative principles”, life as a value as an end by itself.
I have also shown that this end “life as a value” or alternatively, human life, is preserved objectively by the mean “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”.
As this objective mean preserves an axiomatic value and as this mean is derived from an axiomatic value, the whole system is an axiomatic system.
The final result is: “an axiomatic end is preserved by an axiomatic mean”.
As we cannot, logically, deny life, as long as we chose living, we cannot either, logically deny its axiomatic condition i.e. its axiomatic mean.
An Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html
The animation in full-sized window:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: April 23, 2007 2:39 PM
RogerM
Obviously, this discussion is going in circles. All Bjorn can do is regurgitate quotes from Rothbard and repeat the same old tired arguments and trivial examples.
For those still interested in this subject, recall that Mises considered governments to be not only necessary for the survival of civilization, but a good thing, too. Though he recognized the evils that men in government positions could commit, he saw taxes as necessary to support good government and not at all a violation of property rights properly considered.
If you would like to learn more the history of moral philosophy, Francis Schafer's book "How Should We Then Live" is an excellent introduction. In it, you'll learn why Rothbard made such a drastic mistake in trying to invent his own system of ethics.
Published: April 23, 2007 3:09 PM
Björn Lundahl
as Hans-Hermann Hoppe puts it in his book “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property”, page 234 and 235:
“In the present situation of a world-wide crisis of governmental legitimacy, of the collapse of East Bloc Socialism and enduring stagnation of the Western Welfare States, the chance for Austrian rationalism to fill the philosophical vacuum that has appeared with the retreat of positivism and to become the paradigm of the future is as good or better than ever. Now as before it requires moral courage as much as intellectual integrity to propound the Austrian social theory – the opposing statist battalions still represent a formidable majority and are in control of a far larger share of resources. Yet with the total breakdown of socialism and the concept of social ownership staring everyone in the face, the antithetical Austrian theory of private property, free markets and laissez faire cannot but gain attractiveness and win support. Austrians have reason to believe, then, that the time has come when they may succeed in bringing about a fundamental change in public opinion, by reclaiming ethics and economics from the hands of the positivists and the engineering powerful and restoring public recognition of private property rights and free markets based on such rights as ultimate, absolute principles of ethics and economics”.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 23, 2007 3:15 PM
Sam
RogerM, you don't make arguments, all you do is make broad sweeping pronouncments and assertions such as "they are dishonest" this "discussion is going in circles"; "this is trivial"; ect. However, you never make arguments to back up your assertions, rather you pile assertion on top of assertion. At least Bjorn is trying to make an argument, so who cares if he uses Rothbard and Hoppe to back up his points.
Your assertions are convincing only to those who already share your world view. Heck, I'm a minarchist and more inclined to share your veiw of things, but I find your ranting emberassing because you make other minarchists, such as myself look bad.
Published: April 23, 2007 3:37 PM
Björn Lundahl
Actually, I think Roger does not have the capability to understand Hoppe’s ethical proof and not mine either. Alternatively, he is so dishonest that he does not want to understand them and therefore also denies them.
His comments reveal ignorance or dishonesty.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 23, 2007 3:37 PM
Sam
"His comments reveal ignorance or dishonesty."
Bjorn, I agree, except I would change the above sentence to read:
"His comments reveal ignorance AND dishonesty."
It must be noted I think this depite the fact I am a minarchist, as I stated in my other post.
Published: April 23, 2007 3:48 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM, you said:
Bravo! What a clever impersonation of a ignorant person attempting to mock atheistic anarchists in general!
It amazes me how some people can argue that the universe needs a creator, but God does not.
Apparently the "great" modern philosophers were quite lacking in imagination.
Perhaps eventually man will care enough about the long-run to see the benefit in self-ownership and the rights that follow.
Published: April 23, 2007 3:55 PM
Björn Lundahl
Sam said:
“RogerM you don't make arguments, all you do is make broad sweeping pronouncments and assertions such as "they are dishonest" this "discussion is going in circles"; "this is trivial"; ect. However, you never make arguments to back up your assertions, rather you pile assertion on top of assertion. At least Bjorn is trying to make an argument, so who cares if he uses Rothbard and Hoppe to back up his points.
Your assertions are convincing only to those who already share your world view. Heck, I'm a minarchist and more inclined to share your veiw of things, but I find your ranting emberassing because you make other minarchists, such as myself look bad.”
Sam’s comment reveals honesty, especially as he does not share my views. Noble of him! I respect that!
A noble heart is the main thing.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 23, 2007 4:17 PM
TLWP Sam
I kinda agree-ish with RogerM, Björn Lundahl, inasmuchas you defend your beliefs as absolute rules for living which is similar to what religious folks believe. You then support your claims by saying if one person breaks the rules could you imagine then if everyone broke the rules? We'd be all done for! Which is akin to an all-or-nothing morality of religions as opposed to moralities of other people such as the Ancient Greeks who believed that no act was particular wrong only its usage hence the need for virtue of the doer.
Published: April 23, 2007 10:08 PM
Björn Lundahl
TLWP
We all have different opinions, but I believe that if someone claims in this forum and in a debate about ethics or economics that an idea is logically correct, that is claims that certain principles are correct because they are logically derived from an axiom, this is also what the debate is all about. Other people in the debate that have other opinions should then try to logically prove that this very idea is wrong because of this or that reason.
For me it has no value to claim and to cheat that something is true that I really believe is not true, but I pretend that it is true because I want it to be true! What I want is beside the point.
While “debating” with Roger I realized that he is not honest and that he only pretends that he is. You know, if someone, for example, “claims” that I do not exist and that “he doesn’t think so” it will be impossible for me to prove him wrong as he will deny any rational answer.
I find it, for example, very silly and dishonest to accuse anarcho-capitalists for being religious and unscientific when the accuser himself is religious and believes that this very fact makes it scientific. When I pointed this out, he also, went on defending religion and God!
I just wanted to show that this guy is not honest. I have several other reasons to also believe so. But why should I go through all of Roger comments and point out that because of this or that reason he is not honest. Psychologically it would be a little destructive. An honest person, though, could look for himself.
Sam was clever enough to realize this fact. He (and I) did probably not want to accuse anyone of being dishonest, but because of honesty, felt obliged to make the accusation.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 24, 2007 2:16 AM
DC
Roger M writes:
The "great modern philosophers" (who, exactly? Sartre? Camus?), if they say what you are saying, are wrong.
God created the world with a certain order to it, and this order is discoverable by way of reason. See Aristotle's Ethics for how this applies to morality. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that you didn't need God to establish basic morality in political science, since these things are discoverable with the tools that God gives us -- namely, the senses and reason.
Your claim that property rights can't be absolute and that anarchists worship property rights is simply baseless; it's an ad hominem fallacy at best. All anarchists point out is that there is no service that the State provides that voluntary, contractual agreements can't take care of.
Finally, you sum up Mises as follows:
Recall also that Mises believed that any community -- state, canton, county, city, district, neighborhood -- has a right to secede or associate with such a government at any time. He explicitly says that if such secession was possible for the individual as well, it would have to be respected.
Mises articulates the basic minarchist position, and he talks about governments, when done well, as the protector of rights and nothing more. His view of secession makes it clear that governments couldn't enjoy monopolistic, coercive domination over a geographic region without consent of its governed, even down to the neighborhood level. Taxes were good insofar as those paying them consented and remained associated with the State. He did not have in mind a State that would send it's army to any neighborhoods that decided to leave the taxes and bureaucracy behind.
Does that sound like the government that you are supporting? The "government" that Mises supported is a different beast than what we see around us. What State upholds the rights of its citizens to secede from it?
Published: April 24, 2007 7:51 AM
RogerM
DC: "The "government" that Mises supported is a different beast than what we see around us."
I'm not defending the state we have. I guess you could call me a miniarchist, too. I see a lot that's wrong with the US government and agree with most of the criticisms of it by anarchists. I defend the idea of the state as a legit institution, though not a perfect one. The main problem with trying to have a discussion about issues on this web site is that most of the posters don't try to understand what others are trying to say. I never wrote or intended most of what I'm accused of. For instance, why would you assume I defend everything the US government does just because I defend the idea of government as legit?
My argument with anarchists is that they they make property rights an absolute so that any form of government and taxation become theft by definition. That philosophy pretty much started with Rothbard, who I consider a great economist, but who made a major error in philosophy of ethics.
A few people are upset because of my use of the term dishonest and I think that needs clarification. I didn't intend to call anarchists dishonest people. I apologize if that's what anarchists understood. Some of the misunderstanding could be to my attempt to keep posts as short as possible. What I intended was to say that the technique of using non-standard definitions for words in common usage is a dishonest technique. That doesn't mean the people who use the technique are dishonest. They may not be aware of the dishonesty and not intend to be dishonest. It's so commonly used that few people consider it dishonest. But it's a technique not worthy of Austrians or anarchists.
Socialists are the worst offenders in that regard. For example, people have used the word "liberal" to refer to socialism for over 50 years, but the word has nothing to do with socialism. Socialists took the word and gave a new definition in the hopes of fooling ignorant people. They've attempted the same thing with the words "rights" and "justice". Today, you have to define each of those words before you can use them because socialists have ruined them.
The purpose of language is to communicate. In order to communicate well, everyone must understand the meaning of the words used in the same way, as much as possible. When some group changes the definition of a word by inventing their own definition, without making other people aware of that change, communication fails.
I think anarchists have done that very thing with the term "property rights." That's why I discussed property rights with Bjorn for several days an never understood his arguments until it occurred to me that he was using a non-standard definition of the term.
Published: April 24, 2007 10:45 AM
David White
RogerM,
"I defend the idea of the state as a legit institution, though not a perfect one."
Please defend it, then, as libertarians do their anti-statism, i.e., on moral grounds. And that means defending the founding of the state as well as its maintenance.
Published: April 24, 2007 10:55 AM
RogerM
David: "Please defend it, then, as libertarians do their anti-statism, i.e., on moral grounds. And that means defending the founding of the state as well as its maintenance."
I thought that was what I had been doing.
The issue really boils down to the definition of property rights. If you accept Rothbard's definition, then logically you have no other choice but to accept anarchism. That much is clear. At the same time, you need to explain to people you're talking to that you're using a non-standard definition so that they won't misunderstand you.
But if you accept the standard, dictionary definition of property rights, the definition that most English speaking people understand, then you open the door for the possibility of government as being not only legit, but a good and moral thing.
However, the fact that government can be a good thing doesn't mean that it will be. Most governments throughout history have done terrible things to their people. But that doesn't mean the institution is evil, just that the people filling roles in the institution were evil. Condemning government because many people misuse their power is like condemning freedom because criminals take advantage of it, or condeming love because many lovers murder their partners.
Published: April 24, 2007 11:37 AM
Björn Lundahl
Answers.com:
Property Rights
Rights to the ownership and stewardship of, and profits from, land, capital, and other goods.
http://www.answers.com/property+rights?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Property rights (economics)
A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals[1]. All economic goods have a property rights attribute. This attribute has three broad components[2][3]
1. The right to use the good
2. The right to earn income from the good
3. The right to transfer the good to others
These rights need not be held by a single person or collective.
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars (see property rights) are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists' focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.
http://www.answers.com/topic/property-rights
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 24, 2007 12:17 PM
Björn Lundahl
Naturally, the definition of natural law does not include that the starting point must be “God” in an ethical system or that the state must be supported and included in such a system.
The definition of natural law is, instead, as Rothbard pointed out in The Ethics of Liberty:
“NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/three.asp
Answers.com:
“A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.”
“natural law, theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.”
“Natural Law
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed.”
“Natural law
The doctrine that human affairs should be governed by ethical principles that are part of the very nature of things and that can be understood by reason.”
“Natural law has one meaning:
A rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.”
“Natural law (Latin jus naturale) is law that exists independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state.”
http://www.answers.com/natural+law?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 24, 2007 12:45 PM
David White
RogerM,
No, you are not answering the question of why the state, any state, is morally justified. You have to explain not only how the actions of a state -- and even "good" ones can only be financed through the confiscation of private private known as taxation -- are morally justified, but how its coming to be is morally justified. If not through conquest and subjugation -- i.e., aggression -- then how? And what are some historical examples of states coming to be without aggression?
Published: April 24, 2007 1:03 PM
Tyler
It is ludicrous to believe that taxation is robbery and unnecessary. It is true that tax revenue is taken from individuals unwillingly, but that revenue is used to pay for benefits that are necessary and would never be paid for voluntarily. I find it perplexing that the same people who are against taxation and government are the same people who promote universal health care and government assistance. Before anyone claims that taxes and government are unnecessary, take a moment to think about what this country would be like without the luxuries that are paid for with tax revenue. Developed cities, environmental regulations, trade agreements, the military, and the space program are all products of tax revenue. It is easy to see the benefit of abolishing tax because it is immediately gratifying. Extra money in your pocket would be nice, but that would come with a high price tag. Taxation is the price we pay for the freedoms that we enjoy. I agree that taxation might be excessive, but it is not unreasonable.
As far as the economy is concerned, taxation and government are absolutely necessary. Government funding has been used to subsidize everything from agriculture to the airline industry. It is the government’s ability to collect taxes that has spared this country from what may have been multiple recessions.
Published: April 24, 2007 3:13 PM
Jesse
Excellent satire, Tyler. It is indeed difficult to see how anyone could offer that so-called reasoning with a straight face, and yet I see it all the time. My favorite part: "It is the government’s ability to collect taxes that has spared this country from what may have been multiple recessions"? Pure gold! Are you by any chance a professional comedian? You should consider it if you aren't already. You have a real talent.
Published: April 24, 2007 3:31 PM
RogerM
David:"No, you are not answering the question of why the state, any state, is morally justified."
I thought I had, but here goes again. In natural law tradition, government is justified in that it promotes the peace and protects law-abiding citizens against criminals. Of course, to understand natural law, you have to consider the historical character of societies. Throughout most of history, and in most of the world today, justice was a family matter. Families didn't kill and steal from each other. But if someone from your family stole from or killed someone in my family, then every member of my family was obligated to seek revenge. That traditional form of justice still dominates in most of the third world, especially the Arab world. But it causes long term blood feuds and endless violence. In medieval Europe, the nobility employed private armies to protect their property and lives, but they often fought each other and the violence was pretty bad. Natural law saw government as a way to lessen the violence and impose some kind of order. Without government, they saw society descending into chaos and violence.
Natural law theorists considered property rights the most important right behind survival. Since they saw government as necessary to the survival and prosperity of mankind, they allowed for taxation to support it. In the middle ages, kings went to the nobility and asked for taxes to fund their wars so that the people being taxed had a say in how much tax to pay and what is was used for. In the Dutch Republic, England and the US, legislative bodies were set up to represent the people so that those being taxed could determine how much tax they would pay and how those taxes were spent. Because the people have a say in taxation, only anarchists consider taxes to be theft.
Of course, that brings up the continual cry from anarchists that not all people have agreed to pay taxes so taxation is theft from those people. To which others respond with the free rider problem, to which I agree. If you consider basic government (that which provides domestic and international security only) to be a good thing, as I do, then you could argue that those who don't pay their share are the thieves; they're stealing from those who pay taxes to provide that good.
On the practical side, it may be possible to operate a government solely on voluntary contributions, as I argued at the top of this line of posts. I'm certainly willing to work toward such a government. But I don't see that it is morally superior, nor do I have a problem with the current system that requires most people to pay some taxes. Is it coercion? Absolutely. Just as forcing someone to give up stolen property is coercion. Not all coercion is bad.
But a voluntary tax system may not work, especially in war time. In that case, coerced taxation is necessary for the survival of the government. Do people have still have a choice? Yes, they can sell their property and move to another country.
Published: April 24, 2007 4:14 PM
RogerM
Bjorn: "These rights need not be held by a single person or collective."
So a person and the government may have rights to the same property?
According to Webster, "that which a person has a just claim to;" A key word in that definition is "just". Justice and rights refer to relations between humans. So in Crusoe's case, discussing rights is meaningless as long as he is alone. Only when Friday appears does the issue of rights and justice obtain meaning. Rights and justice are a concern of societies and only exist in society. Therefore, property rights cannot exist outside of society.
Bjorn: "Naturally, the definition of natural law does not include that the starting point must be “God” in an ethical system or that the state must be supported and included in such a system."
That odd. Every single natural law theorists except Grotius stated very clearly that God had to be the starting point or no morals could exist. And as I have written, most atheist philosphers agree. Why? Because no man has authority over another man. So no matter how well I reason in my argument, it's still a man's reasoning. Another man could be just as reasonable and come to a different conclusion if he started with different assumptions.
Published: April 24, 2007 4:37 PM
David White
RogerM,
Where to begin...
1) You refuse to address the means by which the state, any state, comes into being. (Hint: think Indians and Africans.)
2) Society cannot exist without government, but the state is only one form of government (the worst one). Thus do you confuse what libertarians do not.
3) "Natural law theorists considered property rights the most important right behind survival. Since they saw government as necessary to the survival and prosperity of mankind, they allowed for taxation to support it."
How nice of them. Meaning how nice of those renowned natural law theorists Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great, the Roman emporers, the Spanish conquistadors, the proponents of Manifest Destiny, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Dubya . . .
4) Yes, "it may be possible to operate a [state] solely on voluntary contributions." It may also be possible be possible for pigs to fly.
Bottom line: You are both evasive and incoherent, as unable to answer a direct question as you are to argue from principle. Thus do you merely perpetuate the status quo, and thus are you part of the problem, not the solution.
Published: April 24, 2007 4:41 PM
Björn Lundahl
Björn: "These rights need not be held by a single person or collective."
RogerM: “So a person and the government may have rights to the same property?”
Björn: Ask Answers.com. They wrote it. Not relevant in this case.
RogerM: “According to Webster, that (property rights) which a person has a just claim to.”
Answers.com:
Ownership
Exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; often said to include the concepts of Possession and of Title, thus being broader than either. Note: Ownership is said to often include both the possession and the title.
http://www.answers.com/ownership?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars (see property rights) are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists' focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.
http://www.answers.com/topic/property-rights
It was, naturally, this last view I was relating to all the time. Anybody could understand that (except, of course, Roger). De facto property rights are the relevant thing.
Bjorn:"...even alone on “his” desert island Robinson Crusoe had ownership of property that is control of property..."
RogerM: “Of course he did. There was no one to challenge his ownership. The example if trivial beyond belief.”
Björn: Note: Ownership is said to often include both the possession and the title (see above in this comment). Further “discussion” on this subject is not relevant.
RogerM: “Rights and justice are a concern of societies and only exist in society.”
Björn: Wrong, rights and justice can exist for all times and places (remember the definition of natural law):
The Ethics of Liberty:
“NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.”
Bjorn: "Naturally, the definition of natural law does not include that the starting point must be “God” in an ethical system or that the state must be supported and included in such a system."
RogerM: “That odd. Every single natural law theorists except Grotius stated very clearly that God had to be the starting point or no morals could exist. And as I have written, most atheist philosphers agree. Why? Because no man has authority over another man. So no matter how well I reason in my argument, it's still a man's reasoning. Another man could be just as reasonable and come to a different conclusion if he started with different assumptions.”
Björn: The truth is, of course, that if the general public supports an idea or principle it will have authority over the individual. The world is ruled by ideas. Today, for instance, the principle of democracy has a great influence on our societies and if people believe in God and religion those concepts too will have influence. There are different ideas and also different religious beliefs. Man chooses his ends and hopefully the great ideas will succeed.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 24, 2007 6:46 PM
RogerM
Bjorn: "De facto property rights are the relevant thing." Why? Because you say so? Where's your business about man being unable to survive without property rights? Or the stuff about property rights being an eternal principle like the law of gravity, or being as necessary as to life as oxygen. Those were the components of your definition of property rights that I objected to. Why aren't those aspects included in the definitions you copied from Answer.com? I have no problem with Answer.com's definitions. It's your additions that I object to.
I completely disagree with your concept of property rights and none of your ranting or raving or foaming at the mouth has given me any reason to change my mind. Your conception is contrary to common usage and historical usage, and in case you didn't notice, contrary to Answer.com
Bjorn:"NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.”
If you begin the natural law tradition with Thomas Aquinas, then scholars reasoned about natural law for about 1700 years. At no time in those nearly two millenia did anyone ever suggest that property is absolute, and therefore government and taxation is evil. Not once! Then Rothbard comes along and claims to have discovered something that no one before him had discovered, that government is evil because property is absolute. Now I know that Rothbard was a brilliant economist and I give him a lot of credit for that, but isn't it just a tad strange even to you that after 1700 years no one could discover what Rothbard discovered? That sucker must have been buried deep? Doesn't it suggest that maybe Rothbard didn't discover anything, but invented it?
Published: April 24, 2007 7:40 PM
RogerM
Dave: "1) You refuse to address the means by which the state, any state, comes into being. (Hint: think Indians and Africans.)
No one knows how government started. It's all speculation which I don't find very interesting.
Dave: "2) Society cannot exist without government, but the state is only one form of government (the worst one). Thus do you confuse what libertarians do not."
Sane people see government and state as the synonyms. Thus do libertarians try to confuse people with artificial distinctions and definitions.
Dave:"How nice of them. Meaning how nice of those renowned natural law theorists Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great, the Roman emporers, the Spanish conquistadors, the proponents of Manifest Destiny, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Dubya . . ."
Are you serious? Do you really not know who the great natural law theorists were? Or are you just trying to be funny?
Dave:"It may also be possible be possible for pigs to fly."
Your brilliance is overwhelming. It's responses like that that I usually won't answer, if you really want to know why I don't respond to your posts.
Dave;"You are both evasive and incoherent, as unable to answer a direct question as you are to argue from principle."
Possibly. Or possibly you're just lack the intellectual ability to understand.
Published: April 24, 2007 7:47 PM
Axel Riemer
I think my head just imploded. Like Lewis Black says.. You guys are out of control!!
RogerM, I can't believe you're disparaging Rothbard because he came up with a new idea after a long succession of philosophy. What new idea was ever discovered before it was discovered? All those millenia we went without knowing the earth revolved around the sun! What sacrilege to suggest otherwise!!
To argue that math isn't anything like economics is tripe. As if there were not forward and backward progress in math and physics. People are finally starting to question the basis of string theory. Mistakes in proofs and problems thought to have been solved are always occurring. To imagine that there are no laws that govern humans means that the law of diminishing returns and of supply and demand are not immutable. It means that I will not always choose (as long as I have the power to choose) to satisfy my most pressing need, as determined by my values.
Why should it not have taken several millenia to discover the true nature of the state? Humans are very complicated, much more so than an apple falling from a tree, or a ball rolling down a ramp, or a planet lurching around a ball of gas.
Besides, who says Rothbard was the first to say that government was evil, and its taxes likewise? I imagine he was not the originator. What's the saying? There's nothing new under the sun.
Have we discovered everything there is to know about humans and human action? I think not. I rather believe the study of human action, which used to go by the name philosophy, is evolving, much like any other field of study. The questions we ask in particular in economics are no longer,"Why are we here? What is my purpose in life? From whence came I?" But one question we do endeavor to answer still,"How then should I live?"
Austrian Economics is the best answer I have yet found. A consistent code (an ethical code is a set of rules set by an organization - different groups have different ethics. A "moral code" I think is more appropriate, in its use as a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct - this from answers.com of course) by which I can live, with none of the contradictions inherent in other popular behavioral codes.
Published: April 24, 2007 8:40 PM
Axel Riemer
And since I seem to be the only person who cares about sloppy mathematics on this site, I'll go ahead and show that (1+1) != 3 by such a wrongheaded method as performed halfway up the page before this topic gets archived.
(1+1)x = 3x
as x approaches 0, the two sides of the equation do indeed approach 0 as well. This is as far as it goes.
What is shown is a demonstration of the identity principle and the commutative principles on which our system of mathematics is based.
Basically, 0*anything = 0.
Obviously.
However, when x = 0, (1+1) != 3. This is like adding instead of multiplying on your 5th grade math test.
when x = 0, (1+1)x = 3x. This is the solution "we are looking for."
That is, the statement is an indirect question: What number times (1+1) is equal to that same number times 3?
Why, zero is!
Rewriting the equation:
0 = 3x - (1+1)x
0 = 3x - 2x
0 = x
Or alternatively:
(1+1)x - 3x = 0
2x - 3x = 0
-x = 0
x = -0
an amazing feature of zero, that it is equal to its negation, a feat unattainable by any other number. A demonstration is betting your friend zero dollars on a horse race: regardless of who wins the bet, the total number of dollars in your possession remains unchanged.
Actually, I like this thought better:
If (1+1)x = 3x shows that (1+1) = 3 when x = 0, then (1+1) can also be shown to equal to 4, 5, 6, sqrt(13), pi, and so forth. In fact, all numbers in the real and imaginary domains must be equal to each other. In fact, the statement (1+1)x = (your face)x also means that your face is equal to (1+1). By extension, all our faces must be equal, as must be all things in existance, both known and unknown.
Simply because you do not know that your neighbor has two apples, does not mean that he does not have two apples.
Simply put, in order for numbers to exist at all, (1+1) cannot be equal to anything but 2. Otherwise, they are a meaningless fiction, simply scratches of ink on paper, or dots of light scorching my retinas. "Numbers" are simply the best way we have found to deal with the concept of what "more" and "less" and that most insane desire of humans to better their situation (the thirst for knowledge, the knowledge to improve our lot). Why else would we learn to count at all?
Thank goodness for numbers!
Published: April 24, 2007 9:02 PM
TLWP Sam
Phew, I thought no one cared about my mathematical crapulence! ;D
Published: April 24, 2007 9:42 PM
Björn Lundahl
To the honest reader I can only say this:
Rothbard and Hoppe have uniquely discovered ethical proofs with the use of praxeology (a general theory of human action). This alone gives us a hint that their investigations and conclusions have good reasons to be successful.
As Roger only can be blathering a lot of statements and misunderstandings and superficially talk about philosophers through history and is incapable to deliver any actual proofs to back up his assertions, his “ideas” should be rejected immediately.
When it comes to it, why should I listen to blathers and misinterpretations and silly questions when I have logical proofs delivered in front of my eyes? Could we reject economics with the same kind of blathers that Roger has stated? If I wanted to know the truth and therefore wanted logical proofs to back them up, could I interpret that Roger has delivered them or should I, at least, consider reading and thinking about Hoppe’s ethical proof? Are those logical proofs disqualified because of Rogers’s statements? Does anyone seriously believe that for instance, serious and extremely intelligent people like Rothbard and Hoppe would have considered them?
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 25, 2007 2:30 AM
RogerM
Francis Schaefer predicted in the 1970's that atheists would not be able to live without absolutes as Camus, Sartre and others told them they should live in order to be logically consistent with their atheism. As a result, they would arbitrarily choose things to replace the absolutes they had abandoned with their abandonment of God. And he was right. The left chose the environment as its god; anarchists have chosen property. Anarchists can see the errors of radical environmentalism that result from their arbitrary choice of an absolute, but not their own errors. And the anarchist choice of property as their god is arbitrary, as Chodorov wrote:
"The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the state is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postulate is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values."
Published: April 25, 2007 6:52 AM
RogerM
Axel: "I can't believe you're disparaging Rothbard because he came up with a new idea after a long succession of philosophy."
That's a very good point. We have made progress in science and should expect to make more. However, based on my brief knowledge of the history of philosophy and ethics, I don't see that kind of progress in the field of ethics and the study of human nature. People often quote Aristotle because few people have been able to improve on his understanding of the two. For that matter, read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible, written about 1,000 BC, and you'll find as good an analysis of human nature as any modern book. The field of ethics has rarely moved forward, but constantly goes in circles.
Natural law was based on a study of human nature, which doesn't require the discovery of new tools with which to study it, whereas astronomy, for example, needed the telescope to be invented. We study human nature the same way today as people did a thousand years ago--by observation and using reason to draw conclusions. I see no reason to believe our powers of observation and reasoning are any better than was theirs. I haven't read everything every natural law writer wrote, but what I have read shows no hint of Rothbard's "discovery" at all. In addition, Rothbard's "discovery" rests completely on the arbitrary choice of property as an absolute, as Chodorov writes, which no natural law writer before him would have dared to do.
Rothbard claimed his ethic was not new, but a continuation of the natural law tradition that preceded him. But it's clear that he made a sharp break with that tradition in making property an absolute. I don't see that as progress.
Published: April 25, 2007 7:15 AM
David White
RogerM,
Your repeated assertion that libertarians worship property is absurd. We simply believe that the right to property flows natrually from the right to one's life and the liberty to pursue it, mindful that others have the same right.
Furthermore, your statement that "No one knows how government started. It's all speculation which I don't find very interesting" only shows how wilfully ignorant you are of history and how incapable you are of honest reflection. You stated that natural law theorists "allowed for taxation" as if they were the ones who determined the course of history -- as if Genghis Kahn or Alexander had to permission from them in order to ram their "governments" down the throats of foreign peoples.
What nonsense. And what a mindless rut it puts you in.
One can only hope that others following along can see for themselves why libertarianism is morally and intellectually superior to every other school of thought.
Thank you, then, for furthering the cause.
Published: April 25, 2007 8:31 AM
RogerM
Axel:"Austrian Economics is the best answer I have yet found."
I agree completely. However, I woulnd't confuse Rothbard's ethics with his economics. The two have little to do with each other. Most Austrian economists I have read don't appear to be anarchists, including Mises and Hayek.
Published: April 25, 2007 8:34 AM
RogerM
Dave: "Thank you, then, for furthering the cause."
No, thank you. The pleasure was all mine.
Published: April 25, 2007 9:23 AM
greg
Jesse> Excellent satire, Tyler... My favorite part: "It is the government’s ability to collect taxes that has spared this country from what may have been multiple recessions?"
My favorite one was: I agree that taxation might be excessive, but it is not unreasonable.
Excellent. {laughs}
Published: April 25, 2007 9:56 AM
greg
MR> "NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places.”
RM> Francis Schaefer predicted in the 1970's that atheists would not be able to live without absolutes as Camus, Sartre and others told them they should live in order to be logically consistent with their atheism. As a result, they would arbitrarily choose things to replace the absolutes they had abandoned with their abandonment of God.
I absolutely do not have the time or perspicacity to absolutely (completely) understand Natural Law. How is that for an absolute?
Published: April 25, 2007 10:12 AM
Björn Lundahl
TLWP: “inasmuchas you defend your beliefs as absolute rules for living which is similar to what religious folks believe. You then support your claims by saying if one person breaks the rules could you imagine then if everyone broke the rules? We'd be all done for!”
Well, this is because of the reason and conclusion that human life is objectively defended by the principle of none aggression as I wrote:
As this objective mean (none aggression) preserves an axiomatic value (life) and as this mean is derived from an axiomatic value, the whole system is an axiomatic system. This is the system that only can therefore be, logically and axiomatically, defended.
Alternatively, the principle which objectively preserves and defends human life (in accordance with an axiomatic procedure for finding this out, see above, normative principles) is the principle of none violations. The meaning of none violations is just “none”.
As we cannot, logically, deny life, as long as we choose living, we cannot either, logically deny its axiomatic condition i.e. its axiomatic mean (none violations).
If we want to find out an ethic based on rationalism or if we want to be “scientific” we must play by its rules by making and defending a rationalistic conclusion and nothing else.
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 26, 2007 2:03 AM
Björn Lundahl
Rothbardian Ethics
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The Problem of Social Order
Robinson Crusoe, alone on his island, can do whatever he pleases. For him, the question concerning rules of orderly human conduct – social cooperation – simply does not arise. Naturally, this question can only arise once a second person, Friday, arrives on the island. Yet even then, the question remains largely irrelevant so long as no scarcity exists. Suppose the island is the Garden of Eden. All external goods are available in superabundance. They are "free goods," such as the air that we breathe is normally a "free" good. Whatever Crusoe does with these goods, his actions have repercussions neither with respect of his own future supply of such goods, nor regarding the present or future supply of the same goods for Friday (and vice versa). Hence, it is impossible that there could ever be a conflict between Crusoe and Friday concerning the use of such goods. A conflict becomes possible only if goods are scarce, and only then can there arise a problem of formulating rules which make an orderly – conflict-free – social cooperation possible.
In the Garden of Eden only two scarce goods exist: the physical body of a person and its standing room. Crusoe and Friday each have only one body and can stand only at one place at a time. Hence, even in the Garden of Eden conflicts between Crusoe and Friday can arise: Crusoe and Friday cannot both simultaneously want to occupy the same standing room without coming thereby into physical conflict with each other. Accordingly, even in the Garden of Eden rules of orderly social conduct must exist – rules regarding the proper location and movement of human bodies. And outside the Garden of Eden, in the realm of scarcity, there must be rules that regulate not just the use of personal bodies but of everything scarce so that all possible conflicts can be ruled out. This is the problem of social order.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 26, 2007 6:01 AM
TLWP Sam
Yes the problem of many people trying to co-exist with each other . . . The more people who enter the problem the more freedom people lose because, chances are, one person's freedom can infringe on someone else's freedom. Playing loud music infringes on someone else's right to silence. Not surprisingly in times long gone with small population densities, freedoms were high and regulations were low . . .
Published: April 26, 2007 8:58 PM
Björn Lundahl
The Law
Frédéric Bastiat:
“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G16367
Björn Lundahl
Published: April 27, 2007 4:20 PM
Björn Lundahl
The murderer is sentenced guilty before the nature of life
You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules? If you do not like this dimension you can pass away from it any time you want. No one is forcing you to stay.
With the help of reason, consciousness and intelligence, you can observe that your fellow men strive to sustain their lives. They do what their nature calls them to do, namely to live. You are a threat against that! You are a threat against this dimension! This dimension would not exist if it couldn’t cope with what is threatening it. You wouldn’t have lived if murdering has been allowed, and despite of this fact, you place yourself above the very cause of your own life. How can you place yourself above the very cause of your existence!?
No organism or life can exist if it is not accommodated to what life demands, and that is partly to eliminate the very things that can cause that life ceases. It is the self-preservation that is the very cause for me to throw out the murderer from my kingdom. You never learn! You are parasites of life! You are saying that you did not choose life because you didn’t create yourself, but no one has, for all men are participants of an eternal process and this fact does not declare your irresponsibility.
The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the murderer’s actions shall be rejected and punished until such destructive threats ceases to exist.
My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.
With a good conscience I will now consider if you also shall be thrown out from my dimension and return to the unconsciousness. If I judge to not throw you out, I will do it with a bad conscience since I have the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules which I then will have denied.
Björn Lundahl
Published: May 3, 2007 5:29 PM
Björn Lundahl
The thief is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.
Men visit my kingdom for a time and then later leave it. I observe this species that with its reason, consciousness and intelligence protects her values and purposes. They cultivates harvest where the wind blow the very least, they build greenhouses to protect the harvest against frigidity; they spray the harvest to protect it from insects. With its reason, consciousness and intelligence some men observe that the harvest can be stolen and out of this reason men defends their harvest with the might of weaponry, for the self-preservation and man’s purposes are then protected.
You can steal due to the fact that man to some extent succeeded to keep down the theft and you can live because man has to some extent succeeded to suppress the theft. Human beings became human beings the day they started to create and you belong to this species. You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to ignore my rules? Since childhood you have learnt that theft is wrong and despite of this, you steal. You are a parasite of life, motives and objectives because theft is a parasite of life, motives and objectives! The day man no longer succeeds in her effort to suppress theft, that day motives, objectives and life ceases to exist.
The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided My nature is thus such that the thief’s actions must be stopped and punished until they ceases to exist.
My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.
In the name of true Justice, as it is built upon the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules, you will now be sentenced for the crime you have done and for the compensation to the victim and this to its fullest extent.
Björn Lundahl
Published: May 3, 2007 5:33 PM