Comments (19)

• Bruce Koerber

  What is very clear from your interesting article is that ethics needs to come front and center!

  This (ethics as a key issue) is another vehicle for distinguishing Austrain economics from all of the fallacious empirical namesakes. It is also a vehicle for distinguishing classical liberalism as the premier social order, sending socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism into the dustbin of economic-dark-ages practices.

  The tradition of ethics in classical liberalism and the Austrian school sets them apart. The subjectivist methodology launches economics and ethics on a parallel trajectory.

  The corruption of the politicians, the political systems, the ego-driven interventionists, and the ego-driven interpreters runs into a brick wall as soon as ethics is elevated to its rightful place. For example, all human intervention into the economy is a corruption of the market process which implies with no compromise that economic intervention is unethical. In other words, it is a crime against humanity.

  Let's make sure that ethics becomes the criterium for service!

  Published: December 24, 2008 8:15 AM

• Inquisitor

  I like your phrase "ego-driven interventionists". It brings to the fore the fact that government agents are just as based on selfish desires as much as anyone else. Interpreters is also a good way to call positivists. They are pretty much reduced to the role of mystics interpreting facts "out there" in the world (Hollis makes this point quite amusingly in his Rational Economic Man.)

  Published: December 24, 2008 10:09 AM

• Davorin Kremenjas

  
  "Moreover, I would argue, no ethical system can exist that is not based on property."
  

  A bit too totalitarian statement from a self-declared libertarian, isn't it?

  Let alone that it's a lame try to deprive the human race of its inherent knowledge-seeking capabilities.

  Published: December 24, 2008 10:45 AM

• John Shepard

  Mr. Fedako,

  I agree with your interesting thoughts, borne in a moment of facing a disturbing contradiction; however, you end with your finalized statement, "I do not mind paying for the children's holiday program, but I mind that my neighbor was forced to pay as well."

  You left out the most critical point in your summary. Although I think it was implicit from all else you said, you should include, foremost and primarily, explicitly in your summary statement, that you mind that you were forced to "pay" for the program regardless of whether or not you enjoyed it and would have voluntarily supported it.

  ("Pay" is too innocent a concept to be applied to compliance with coercion, with taxation. One doesn't "pay" taxes; under threat of harm, in violation of one's rights, one surrenders one's wealth.)

  Published: December 24, 2008 10:48 AM

• Inquisitor

  Ethics deals with conflicts, stemming from scarcity, hence its propertarian basis. Nothing "totalitarian" about this.

  Published: December 24, 2008 10:51 AM

• David Spellman

  Another reason people believe that taxation is not a problem is the implicit assumption in their minds that everyone agrees with them. They always use the "We" obviously must do something as a "Society" about our "Common" problems. Apparently, every man believes they are Everyman and lacks the introspection that other people have different needs, hopes and desires.

  Quite a few people will agree that taxation reduces to theft if you can get them to admit that some people may not like or benefit from "donating" to the common good (i.e. someone else's cause). The problem is that those people cannot conceive of a real life situation where anyone would believe that it is okay to let children starve, sick people suffer, or wars to go unfought. The are cock sure that everyone is on their side and therefore taxation is universally agreeable.

  Ipso facto, there can be no argument or lack of ethics.

  Published: December 24, 2008 2:29 PM

• Danny Shahar

  Cool article. Please see my responseIf You Don't Like It, Should You Git Out?: A Reply to Fedako.

  Published: December 24, 2008 2:30 PM

• David Spellman

  The most laughable analogy I have ever heard is the one about "Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a free society!" Could there be a more ludicrous misunderstanding?

  Taxes are a sign we _don't_ live in a free society.

  Published: December 24, 2008 2:33 PM

• Christopher

  totalitarian: adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed
  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

  Not exactly sure how his [Fedako's] idea that a firm understanding and belief in the theory of private property must be the premise of an ethical system equates to totalitarianism. Maybe I'm missing something.

  Published: December 24, 2008 2:35 PM

• dave

  I liked Jim's article a lot and I sent it to a "liberal" friend. Below is his response, and it shows what we're up against today in America. I find it more than a little discouraging. This friend is pretty intelligent, but I think he only reads on the left -statism - end of the spectrum. He's a dedicated reader of "The NewYorker" if I remember right.
  His response:
  "Well, as much as you and I have in common, we obviously have some differences, and this guy's opinion is one of them.
  
  I'll admit, I don't even understand half of what he's saying. Does he believe he has some insight as to what constitutes "rights"? Does he only recognize rights specifically identified in our constitution, and, if so, does he believe that only his interpretation is correct? Because, as much as some of our legislators like us to think they stand for "strict interpretation", the constitution is as much subject to interpretation as the bible.
  
  If the only rights he recognizes are property rights, that disenfranchises a hell of a lot of people.
  
  I especially got a kick out of this statement:
  
  "To believe that, absent government, folks would not help the poor is to turn one's back on history."
  
  What history is he reading? Sure, there are always a few charitable organizations out there trying desperately to help people in need, but their best efforts fall short most of the time, and are subject to the vagaries of our economy.
  
  Why don't people who are obsessed with the obligation to pay taxes do something about it? How come there hasn't been a mass exodus to New Hampshire, which has no income or sales taxes? (How the hell does New Hampshire operate, anyway? Do they have high property taxes?). Anyway, all of us have the opportunity, numerous times in any election cycle, to say no to some taxes, or to say no to some candidates who are likely to propose taxes. Apparently, based on the number of votes he got in the last election, Ron Paul and his ideas just don't appeal to very many voters, and the whole basis of our system is majority rule.
  
  Maybe this whacko needs to go find his own little piece of outback and do whatever he pleases."

  A lot of people like this friend are very sure of their opinions.
  You guys keep up the good work. People like me need to know there's somebody out there fighting the good fight. It's lonesome out here.

  Published: December 24, 2008 3:41 PM

• Matthew Kirkham

  I appreciate your article on the ethical aspects of property rights. Just the other day I was commenting to my wife; how that PBS is about the only channel with content that actually edifies. (if you can call Victor Borges edifying). But it is true that programs like "Firing Line" and others have had a positive impact on society, as well as the promotion of western culture in the form of classical music. I still plan on enjoying my local PBS station, but when it comes time for the monthly controbutions drive, I'll just send in a copy of my W2 form.

  Published: December 24, 2008 8:22 PM

• John Shepard

  For any interested, Ayn Rand wrote an essay entitled, "Man's Rights," which can be read (registration necessary) at: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_writings. (If the link doesn't work directly, register and then search the site for the name of the essay, "Man's Rights.")

  In that essay, Miss Rand discusses the relationship between ethics and politics, between the moral principle of individual rights and political principles and rights.

  Why do I mention and suggest her essays?

  Because it is not true that ethics rests upon property rights. It's the other way around. Property rights presuppose and rest upon a specific ethical foundation. What one advocates politically depends upon the ethical views one holds.

  For instance, pro-communist intellectuals often say that communism is a noble ideal -- an ethical view -- which has failed (to date at least) in practice. What's critical is that as long as it's held to be a noble (ethical) ideal, regardless of the practical disasters which flow from efforts to implement it (or any other collectivist system), those who hold it as an ethical ideal will continue to fight for it. (And those who do no grasp the relationship of ethics to politics will be unable to fight against it.) The politics people advocate rests upon their ethical views.

  Too, on that same page, there are links to two other relevant articles by Miss Rand:

  "Collectivised Rights" and "The Nature of Government"

  Published: December 24, 2008 8:34 PM

• Gil

  Perhaps many would also like to read this article in which the author postulates why people don't accept the free market:

  http://www.paulbirch.net/EmotionalCapital.html

  Here's a choice quote:

  "Why do people react this way? Why do they hide? Why are they unable to face the truth? Because the truth would be painful. Not only would they be forced to re-evaluate their whole outlook on life, in a costly paradigm shift that any rational person will wish to avoid; they would also have to accept that their customary behaviour and cherished beliefs have been wrong; not merely mistaken, but ethically and morally inexcusable. They would have to admit, to themselves even more than to the world, that they have given aid and comfort to thugs and thieves and murderers, that they have aided and abetted banditry and oppression and fraud, that they are themselves thieves and plunderers and oppressors — in short that they are evil."

  Published: December 25, 2008 4:33 AM

• Mark

  While I applaud Jim Fedako's opposition to taxes and government pork, I have to disagree that property is the base of ethics. For private property acquires moral value only because it contributes to a higher moral end: the sustainance and flourishing of one's life. In the absence of this higher moral purpose, what would be the good of property?

  Sacrcity is insufficient justification for property as the cardinal ethical value. For scarcity is important, not in and of itself; but only because one must overcome scarcity to survive and achieve well-being.
  And further, some ethical violations--murder, for one--may be entirely detached from considerations of scarcity.

  Ethics consists of the principles one should live by to appropriately and successfully meet the challenges of life. This insight was one of Ayn Rand's great contributions.

  Published: December 25, 2008 5:36 PM

• FriendsOfLiberty

  Property Rights begin with one's property right to one's own being--his body and his mind. My body is my property, and so is my mind. Without this basic premise, arguments for property rights stand on weak foundations. From my property right over my own being expands all my other property rights. What ethics could exist for me without my own self-ownership?

  Published: December 27, 2008 11:01 AM

• John Shepard

  "Property Rights begin with one's property right to one's own being--his body and his mind."

  Of course, if one doesn't have a property right to his own being, then he could hardly have a property right with respect to anything else, but your statement is merely a statement, an assertion, it begs the question: Does one have a right to property, even one's own being?

  Property rights are not self-evident; they depend upon certain ethical views. Not all ethical views will lead to the political recognition of property rights. Most do not.

  Ethics depends upon specific views about human nature and the nature of the world we live in.

  If one holds that man has free will, that man, who is nether omniscient nor infallible, needs knowledge, certainty, to act to sustain his life and achieve his happiness, then he needs ethical principles to guide him, principles that he has to discover and validate just as he has to discover and validate all knowledge. If this world is all there is, ethical principles will reflect that . If faith is a means of knowledge, if there's an "after-life" awaiting man beyond the grave and his "future" in that "after-life" depends upon his faithful acceptance and obedience to the will of God, then ethical principles will reflect it. If the individual is only a cell in the collective whole, properly subordinate to that whole, then ethical principles will reflect that. On such views, the individual can hardly be said to have property rights.

  The right to property is the right to use and dispose of something in accordance to one's own choice or will. Consistently held, the only limitation upon one's property rights is the rights of others. One can hardly invoke a principle rooted in the nature of being human, yet deny that principle to others.

  If one owes one's life to others, God or Society, etc., then one does not own one's life, and one has no right -- it would not be right or proper -- to claim self-ownership.

  Property rights, the political principle that recognizes the individual's right to property (reflecting the moral or ethical principle of individual rights), the right to the use and disposal of certain things, including the individual's own existence, his own life (body and mind), depends upon specific ethical views. When men organize or modify their social structure (Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, etc.), they do so on the basis of ethical views. "This is how humans are, this is the nature of reality, therefore this is how humans should behave and how they should relate to one another socially."

  Ethical views, just as all views, depend upon a theory of knowledge (Epistemology) and a view of the nature of reality (What is it? Is there another realm, an "after-life" or eternal existence which by logic would have to be considered the higher value to which this earthly existence should be subordinate? Metaphysics). This cannot be escaped; it is why your assertion is not convincing. It's quite obvious that many people and peoples of the world do not recognize property rights including what you say is the fundamental property right, one's right to one's own being.

  Conviction on the issue of property rights requires Ethics which requires Metaphysics and Epistemology. I believe that Miss Rand said somewhere that it's philosophy that has gotten us into this mess, and it's only philosophy that will get us out of it.

  Published: December 28, 2008 9:32 AM

• william duff

  for what its worth:

  Property Ownership is secured by the Constitution in its "secure the blessings of Libety" phrase. Those being Life, Liberty and Happiness ( all of which are individually held property)

  WEBSTER: A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the exclusive right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer ownership

  5. All “public property” is the property belonging to the people collectively. Governments are merely trustees of that property .
  "The municipality, which is a mere trustee of the public, and holds the streets and alleys in trust for that public, cannot deny the right of the public to use the streets and alleys. It cannot assume an exclusive ownership, and deny the rights of the beneficiaries under their trust, and arrogate to itself a power greater than that of a mere trustee, and prevent the use of the streets and alleys by individual members of the public." City of Chicago v Collins et al., Supreme Court of Illinois

  6. Possession of public property by one of the people is evidence of ownership where no better title exists. As such, Title to public property is no better in one or a group of the people than in any other of the people. Possession is a means by which right and title is measured . Respecting the public right of way, I possess the land where I stand and where my auto is and there is no better title existing than my possession. This is a necessary element of liberty. There can be no liberty without a right to be where you are. Your Liberty right is as authoritative as ownership. It comprehends exclusivity.

  "WEBSTER: Possession is a property interest under which an individual is able to exercise power over something to the exclusion of all others. It is a basic property right that entitles the possessor to (1) the right to continue peaceful possession against everyone except someone having a superior right; (2) the right to recover a chattel that has been wrongfully taken; and (3) the right to recover damages against wrongdoers. Possession requires a degree of actual control over the object, coupled with the intent to possess and exclude others. The law recognizes two basic types of possession: actual and constructive."

  and finally

  Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

  If you recognize that interferring with the "exclusivity" of ownership would abrogate the propety right itself.......... then you are on the right track.............. same for possession ....... charging a parking violation to one of the people must be an attempt to destroy the exclusivity inherent in that possession of public property where no better title can exist.........

  william duff
  www.williamduff.com
  read my article on "the American birthright" and "seeking liberty" on that website.
  

  Published: December 31, 2008 4:15 PM

• John Shepard

  While I agree that the US Constitution secures the right of property, it is not the source of that right. It is the recognition of that right. If the right of property did not exist as a natural right, there would be no valid grounds upon which to secure that right. The source of man's rights are his nature.

  "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

  The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

  Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

  The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

  Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

  The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

  The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

  “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)"

  "Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand, http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights

  Published: January 2, 2009 9:26 AM

• William Duff

  John

  i agree completely. I suggest you google G Edward Griffin on the subject of collectivism vs individualism. from that you should see the how the undermining of Rights is being accomplished. It should give you the power to resist. Added with the will to resist you would be a true patriot.

  wdd

  Published: January 27, 2009 1:32 PM