Paolo wrote on June 30, 2009 07:41 PM: Titus--

Good points indeed. It is impossible to conceive of any civilized society that does not have property rights. Even in the worst commie societies, there had to be some recognition of property rights; otherwise, commie societies would have collapsed overnight. If, as Patrick says, the very notion of property is absurd, then why produce anything? Why be productive, when what you make can be taken from you with impunity by either the state or any random thug?

A society without property rights is an impossibility.

Titus wrote on June 29, 2009 01:54 PM: Paolo,

Patrick said, "the very concept of property is absurd." Thus your dining set, however lovingly crafted, is also "stolen" -- the raw materials were "stolen". (Perhaps your own body is "stolen" since it was fed with food grown on "stolen" land.) These sort of nihilistic arguments are easily blown away with reductio ad absurdum, and they also betray an ignorance of property rights or serious philosophical study of the matter.

He likely doesn't even believe his own argument -- should Patrick have everything he owns stolen, he likely would report the event to the authorities and/or insurance agencies, thus asserting his property rights.

Paolo wrote on June 27, 2009 01:21 PM: Hi Bill Smith,

Well, you're right of course regarding Patrick. Nonetheless, I find it interesting trying to find out just what goes on in his thinking process.

Continuing the discussion of the concept of property--

Patrick seems to agree, maybe, that property does in fact belong to you if you in fact go through the effort to create it. At least, I hope he agrees with this concept. For example, if I build a table and chairs, I do in fact own them. I hope Patrick agrees with this concept.

However, Patrick seems to think that this all goes out the window with the concept of real property--land and homes. In this type of property, and ownership is stealing, he says.

So, if Patrick were to come upon some totally unused land, devote a year or so to building shelter, erecting fences, planting crops, and protecting farm animals, he would still conclude that he had somehow "stolen" the land. And the next fellow who wandered in, who did not exert any effort to improving the land, would have the exact same right to live on it as Patrick does. If that same person burned down Patrick's house, killed his farm animals, and burned his crops, Patrick would have no moral leg to stand on in complaint.

The underlying principle, for libertarians, is that those who live on and develop real property have the right to own it. An early and very reasonable example of this, in law, was the early homestead act, which acknowledged that settlers had the right to own previously unowned property, if they worked the land and made improvements. This is entirely just and fair.

patrick wrote on June 26, 2009 10:43 AM: Paolo:

You got something caught on your leg; just shake it a few times, I'm sure it will fall off.

I'm sure you understand that I NEVER said people SHOULDN'T "own" property, and as you know, there is no "real" explaination for libertarianism, its merely an idea, which exists only in the minds of people who like to think about things.

Bill Smith wrote on June 26, 2009 04:29 AM: Patrick is lost Paolo. Many times has libertarianism and ZAP been explained to him yet he continues to use government in his examples. Now he even goes on to say that no one should own property. Maybe this worshiper of Marx will wake up, but I doubt it.

patrick wrote on June 25, 2009 08:05 PM: a system of functioning government; it is anarchy, which of course you encourage as a libertarian.

Paolo, I have asked "winston smith" this question and now I ask you, doesn't it strike you as odd, that never, in human history has a "true" "libertarian" government existed in the world?

Now, it may also be said that heaven has never existed on earth, and the fact that it hasn't doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good thing, but seriously, do you believe that men are such benevolent creatures, that left to their own devices they would only accomplish good and joy on the earth? Seriously?

Cause, my experience, and the experience of history is not naive; men, left to their own devices will behave as animals, and a society of animals is hardly what I would consider to be a society worth living in. Consider any animal society; you have predators and you have prey, there is very little in between.

Seems to me, that libertarians wish a return to the law of the jungle and that is a) not going to happen, and b) never should happen.

The base instincts of man, when left to their own selfish desires would, in short order, create a world where the strong are left, and the less fortunate are dead. Human life has more value to me, as a human being, that merely valuing a person by how able they are to survive in such a world.

If your son were disable, blind, and unable to live without you, would you kill him? Am I my brothers keeper?

I say yes, and that is why libertarian philosophy is so morally wrong, and, I am in good company, cause I aint happening now, and it ain't going to happen any time soon.

patrick wrote on June 25, 2009 07:54 PM: Paolo:

The very concept of property is absurd.

You "own" a piece of land as much as I "own" a piece of Saturn.

Your "right" to that land exists ONLY because someone, whether you or a government has decided to enforce your "rights" to that property at the point of a gun.

Now, you claim that when YOU use a gun, to protect "your" property, that this is a justified use of force, but when a government, which designed the system by which you may even hold property, uses "force" to permit that same holding of property, that this is somehow "wrong".

Your holding property, away from all others who would make a claim on it through the use of force is in no way superior to that force that the government, through the consent of the people who formed the government, uses to either insure your "rights" to that property, OR to devote that property to other uses, so long as those uses are genuinely to benefit the population which the government represents.

I will say it again, all property rights which separate property among individuals IS stealing. Property, or more simply, land, "belongs" to everyone and no one.

The artificial means that man has used to "create "property" do not make land any more a persons "property" than does my claiming to "own" Saturn.

I believe that man made "property" HAS resulted in a much more civilized society, but it has great costs associated with it; wars, famine, disease, and more.

Parceling out the wealth of the world according to how many guns a country has, or how willing or even able, those countries and individuals are to use their guns, can ONLY result in the wealth of the world being divided between the most aggressive, most evil, and this is not

Paolo wrote on June 23, 2009 08:06 PM: Further reply to Patrick--

Let me simplify my last post. Basically, Patrick, you see no moral difference between creating something, and stealing something.

You see no difference (apparently) between a hard-working person who creates products people voluntarily want to buy, and a thief or king who produces nothing, but lives by stealing what productive people have made.

To you, it's all stealing.

Is it your position that there is no justice owning something you yourself create? Please explain.

Paolo wrote on June 23, 2009 07:40 PM: Here is one flaw in your reasoning regarding the acquisition of property.

First, you start out discussing primitive man and how he first acquired property. You seem to have this image in your head that men only acquire property by threatening and killing others. This notion can be easily dispelled. When a man first created a spear (property), with which to hunt, he acquired that property in the just manner of creating it. When he gathered fruit, he acquired the property justly by putting forth the effort to collect it. And so forth.

But then, you launch into a description of how kings send out armies to acquire property, as if this has some sort of moral equality with actually creating property.

Patrick, you may have noticed that libertarians have no great fondness for kings.

As I have stated previously, you argue against a free society by describing its opposite. You argue against acquisition of property by just and creative means, by talking about the terrible wars kings start to steal away that very same property.

Patrick, if you work hard at a job, and you buy a car with your earnings, you can and should own the car. It is wrong for me to draw a gun on you and steal your hard-earned car. You created the wealth; I am merely stealing it.

patrick wrote on June 23, 2009 02:23 PM: People like Bill Smith will never be happy...I was going to say something witty in response, but, I think the above pretty much says it all.

Paolo:

Tell me how the first man on earth acquired property, and how he "held" it? And why property "claimed" by kings who sent minions out to "claim" the property was owned by them, and no one else, and why it is that, because these kings were able to defend their "rights" to the property that any taking of that property by force was "wrong" according to libertarian theory?

The thing is Paolo, libertarians believe that when a man, "who uses his "effort" and labor to "secure" property, thereby "owns" that property, and further that they are able to defend that property "right" against all others. In this scenario, the fact that a king, orders his people (agents) to go an "claim" land in the name of the king, thereby, according to libertarian "theory" "owns" the property.

As I suggested to winston, this can only lead to a world where the strongest, either physically, or today, militarily, "owning" the world.

This is no basis for the distribution of wealth in the world and can ONLY lead to militarism and constant war, OR a world where ONE man, or a few men, "own" everything and all other men are slaves, because they simply CANNOT own property.

Course, THIS is truly the "unintended" consequence of libertarian theory, and obviously since the theory is just that...a theory that no country would EVER seek to operate under, that is what it will be forever.

Read All Comments