Toward a Critique of Libertarian Property Rights

[BurtWorm]

For discussion, in a more manageable forum than that provided in sweetheart's thread on a critique of the whole Libertarian Party platform.

From that platform:

The Right to Property

There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.

We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location.

Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.



My question for Libertarians: What is your position on equal opportunity to acquire property?

[Wwagsthedog]

1. Native Americans...

... would be interested in how this forum might be used to justify restoration of their property rights in the USA; specifically paragraph 5.

[BurtWorm]

2. Interesting question!

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. No rights are absolute

Property rights included. Property rights are unique in that they have great impact on the nature of property nearby.

If you build a 20-story building next door to my house, my property values go down. If you build that building, it impacts county and state services including water, sewer, roads and schools. Using this amendment, you might as well pave over the entire area around every major city, since that is what developers would do.

[izzie]

4. Where I lived in Maine was Indian property to after we became USA

It was 'giving' to people who fought in that war. Were not the Indians the real owners of that peopperty if we look at it this way? Shall we give it back? No property is owned out right by anyone as we all must look after the common good. We may take title but rules must pass with that title or we go backwards.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. That is an interesting concept - "self ownership"

So, according to the libertarians, slavery would be legal, as long as the slave was "justly acquired". Of course, to be "justly acquired" would mean that the slave would have had to make the first sale, but of course, once that sale was finalised, the slave could be sold and resold due to property rights of the slave owner.

And of course, by libertarian philosphy, a property owner can do whatever they want with their property, so they can be put to work as sex slaves if the owner so wishes.

What about children? What if a child decides to sell themself into slavery? Well, the libertarians might answer, the child wouldn't be allowed to, but isn't that infringing on the property rights of the child? Or do children not own themselves? If they don't, who does, and what stops the owner from selling them into slavery?

Hmm... something makes me think the libertarians haven't quite thought this through. Either that, or their selfishness has so blinded them that they will IGNORE the inherent stupidity of their philosophy in order to push the one thing they really believe: "Screw you, I've got mine".

[Terwilliger]

8. I think your last thoughts...

were right on target.

[Character Assassin]

17. There are inherent contradictions in most political philosophies

But perhaps you've overlooked the fact that the very root of the word is 'liberty', and slavery is the total absence of that.

Your comments are typical of many critiques of libertarianism. One alleged statement or proposition is used to extrapolate hysterical assumptions, ie., personal ownership of nukes, cocaine vending machines in daycare centers and, in this case, people selling themselves into slavery.

There is, however, a logical disconnect here. If one were to sell oneself into slavery, there would have to be some sum or value exchanged between the parties. Let's say, in this case, $5000, just as an example. Once the 'transaction' has occured, however, seeing as the slave basically has no rights, the new 'master' can simply relieve the slave of said $5000, and still have mastery over the slave. Thus the entire proposition falls apart.

Hmm... something makes me think the libertarians haven't quite thought this through.

Something makes me think you haven't particularly thought this through.

Either that, or their selfishness has so blinded them that they will IGNORE the inherent stupidity of their philosophy in order to push the one thing they really believe: "Screw you, I've got mine".

So because you don't understand the philosophy, and attempt to attribute to it the worst possible of motives, the entire school of thought and its various manifestations are 'inherently stupid' and all libertarians are only looking out for number one, screw everyone else.

Perhaps you ought to consider what you yourself are ignoring.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

18. So we should just ignore them?

There is, however, a logical disconnect here. If one were to sell oneself into slavery, there would have to be some sum or value exchanged between the parties. Let's say, in this case, $5000, just as an example. Once the 'transaction' has occured, however, seeing as the slave basically has no rights, the new 'master' can simply relieve the slave of said $5000, and still have mastery over the slave. Thus the entire proposition falls apart.

Not at all, because the sale could be made in such a way as the family of the soon-to-be slave gets the money. Think of it as an insurance payout, but instead of dying, the subject becomes a slave.

Once again, you are IGNORING the reality of this policy. If a person's body is property that they own, and if all property rights are to be defended by Libertarian philosophy, then the sale of a person into slavery must also be defended by Libertarian philosophy.

By the way, who said that the transfer of ownership had to be accompanied by a transfer of money? Perhaps people will transfer ownership of themselves in return for a cancelling of debt for their family? How many poor parents would sell themselves if it meant that their partner and children could be free of debt? A whole bunch I am sure.

I notice that the policy talks about INVOLUNTARY servitude, but if you sell yourself, is that not voluntary servitude? Isn't the initial payment much like wages paid in advance?

So what are the Libertarians saying, some property rights are not absolute, and you can not sell yourself into slavery, but all other property rights are somehow different and thus there can be no regulation of them?

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Should the above paragraph be changed to reflect the Libertarian philosphy that not all rights are equal? Perhaps it should read:

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others, or the particular cotrol, use, disposession, or enjoyment of said property makes Libertarian philosophy look bad.

Because, that is what you are saying.

So because you don't understand the philosophy, and attempt to attribute to it the worst possible of motives, the entire school of thought and its various manifestations are 'inherently stupid' and all libertarians are only looking out for number one, screw everyone else.

Oh, I understand it all right, possibly even better than you do, because I can see that it has inherent contradictions that kill the entire reason for its existence.

Either ALL rights are absolute, and thus ALL rights are protected by Libertarian philosphy including the right to sell yourself into slavery, or some rights are NOT absolute, and can be regulated for the greater good. If the latter is true, then there is no point to Libertarianism at all, because then it simply becomes an argument of which rights are absolute and which are not, and the result will be much the same as we have now.

[calm_blue_ocean]

19. Puddn'head Wilson

Is a Mark Twain novel that explores some of the difficulties of selling oneself into slavery. Recommended read. Funny.

[Character Assassin]

20. And that is the purest distillation of your misperception

So because you don't understand the philosophy, and attempt to attribute to it the worst possible of motives, the entire school of thought and its various manifestations are 'inherently stupid' and all libertarians are only looking out for number one, screw everyone else.

Oh, I understand it all right, possibly even better than you do, because I can see that it has inherent contradictions that kill the entire reason for its existence.

Anything is possible, I suppose.

Have you thought about doing some stand-up routines part time? That was pretty funny.

Either ALL rights are absolute, and thus ALL rights are protected by Libertarian philosphy including the right to sell yourself into slavery, or some rights are NOT absolute, and can be regulated for the greater good.

As with everything in life and human existence, there are various degrees, colorations, shadings, if you will, to which certain things might be better or more poorly executed, enjoyed, etc.... Libertarianism is one of those things, and not, as you attempt to portray it, some phantasmagorical 'all or nothing' affair. It's rather more akin to a Platonic Ideal.

If the latter is true, then there is no point to Libertarianism at all, because then it simply becomes an argument of which rights are absolute and which are not, and the result will be much the same as we have now.

Please. I would be equally as wrong as you are now if I were to contend that democracy, absent absolute rule by 50.1% of the electorate, falls apart because it's not living up to its absolute nature. I mean, after all, wouldn't that 'kill the entire reason for its existence'?

[calm_blue_ocean]

6. To address the question

I am not really a Libertarian, but I am probably more Libertarian than most DU'ers, so I'll attempt an answer.

First: Libertarians, like most of us, are not absolutists. Traditionally, the rap on Libertarians was that they wanted to take down all the traffic lights and such. This is not fair. It is like saying that a Democrat is a Communist if the Democrat wants to increase spending on social programs. Of course, most Democrats do not believe in redistribution of all (or even most) of people's income, and they are therefore not Communists. Analogously, Libertarians generally want to decrease government spending, but not to the point of getting rid of all government functions.

Second: Libertarians, like most of us, would love to live in a society where an all-knowing and supremely fair governing body doles out economic resources and economic opportunity in an egalitarian manner. However, Libertarians, like most of us, see this as a utopian dream that has been attempted at various times in history, but has not worked.

Third: Here is where Libertarians get somewhat different from the rest of us. Libertarians believe that the consistent failure of government to fairly dole out opportunity and wealth means that government should be reduced wherever possible, with a consequent reduction in taxes (especially taxes on the poor). Of course, different Libertarians differ on where exactly it would be best to start reducing governement involvement. Some Libertarians would reduce "defense" spending first. Some Libertarians would reduce Patriot Act type spending first. Some Libertarians would oppose the War On Drugs. Some Libertarians would oppose corporate bailouts and corporate welfare. Some Libertarians would focus on wasteful social programs, whose costs are perceived as outstripping their benefits.

Fourth: With all that background, it is now time to directly answer your question about equal opportunity. Assume that Libertarians started to make headway and many of the government expenditures of the previous paragraph were cut. The Libertarian believes that the economy would improve and that people would be more willing and able to take care of each other on a private basis. Think of the US prior to our era of big income taxes and big federal and state budgets. Of course, this system would not be as nice or fair as an all-knowing, benevolent government that was committed to equal opportunity. However, the Libertarian believes that the all-knowing , benevolent government is not an option -- it is a pipe dream. Therefore, given the perceived choice between:

(A) a government that redistributes 40% of our money, while paying lip service to equal opportunity, but in reality subtly transfers the money to rich people; and

(B) a government that only redistributes %5 or 10% of our money, while making it understood that the government has very little money for big social programs (or anything else).

The Libertarian chooses (B). You may not agree, but hopefully you can muster some sympathy for this train of thought.

Fifth: I stated earlier that I am not a Libertarian. Let me explain. I have recently come to believe that there is a big need for antitrust enforcement (especially with respect to large health insurance companies) and regulation (especially with respect to utilities and oil companies). Of course, there is some tax burden associated with really doing these things, but the pro-big-business interests really oppose these actions because it hampers their profiteering (not because of the tax burdens they entail). Also, I think the business sector should pay a lot more of the tax burden than they do now, relative to the non-business sector. Unfortunately, I do not find that Libertarians are sympathetic to my views in these areas, so I don't really lump myself in with Libertarians.

I hope I have answered your question.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. reduce democracy and promote oligarchy, in other words

Everybody hates big beauracracy in general, whether it's "public" or "private", "governmental" or "corporate". The Libertarians main goal, main thrust, and primary cause is to reduce the democratic governmental beauracracy, which is based on the principle of one-person, one-vote.

However, the Libertarians are just fine with the "private" "non-governmental" and "corporate" beauracracy, because they are based on one-dollar, one-vote, the key Libertarian principle. Rich people are worth more than everyone else.

That's the reason they see everything through the concept of property, and every crime as a property crime. To them human rights is just another kind of property law, to be bought or sold by the highest bidder. As long as everyone does this "voluntarily" with "consent" it's all fine in Libertopia.

Libertarians hate democracy, and equality, and egalitarianism. It's obvious why - Libertarians are mostly rich and well-off middle class white people living in the United States, the most priviledged group of people on the planet. *Of course* they advocate a system where they get more votes than anyone else.

[calm_blue_ocean]

11. I would agree that Libertarians are

generally way too pro-oligopoly, pro-big-business (see point "Fifth" in my previously reply).

However, I do not think that means that Libertarians hate democracy or equality, at least more than anyone else.

Here is a partial list of non-Libertarians, who are also way too pro-big-business to suit my tastes: Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Gray Davis, Bill Simon, *, Bill Clinton, all Congress members who are trying to block new drug importation, and so on.

Being pro-big-business is a common and somewhat understandable mistake. It is *not* constructive to pitch the level of invective by saying that all these people "hate" democracy or equality.

Edit: added "*not*"

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. pitching the level of invective

I have met a number of Libertarians and libertarians in my life, received mailings from the LP for 10 years, and always without fail their main goal is to limit the concept of democracy and promote invidious distinctions based on money. I think the invective is at exactly the right pitch.

[calm_blue_ocean]

13. okay

I buy into your logic.

Al Gore hates democracy and equality.

Long live Arianna Huffington!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. ha ha, no I'm not talking about politicians and their spin and corruption

Libertarians don't even have any elected politicians. I'm talking about the footsoldiers of the movement, the regular people who like Libertarian ideas and promote them. The ones I have met and read hate democracy, hate the ideal of egalitarianism and equality, and generally promote the interest of rich people. They are almost always from the most priviledged classes in society.

Does Al Gore hate democracy? Does Harry Browne? How would I know, they are politicans, they always say stuff.

[calm_blue_ocean]

15. Perhaps you ought to become acquainted with . . .

some libertarians who are pro-democracy and not particularly enamored of the wealthy class. Suggested reading:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0309/evoting_study.html

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0309/harrypotter.html

http://www.polyarchy.org/paradigm/english/democracy.html

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/microsoft_monopoly.html

I do not personally agree with all (or even most) of what is in these articles. However, they show that not all libertarians are pro-wealthy-class or anti-democracy.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Obvious difference between owning your body and "owning" real estate

But the libertarians want to pretend it's the same thing. So for them, property tax is the same thing as slavery.

This is the problem you get when you have really smart people deducing their first principles and then trying to force everyone else to live by their utopian fantasy. Remember Communism? No thanks.

If you can't understand the difference between human rights and our social rules for exchanging goods and services, you probably can't understand the difference between a human being and a commodity to be bought and sold.

[Mairead]

9. Speaking as a socialist libertarian

'Property rights' are a social construct. They do not exist as the result of 'natural law', as cap-libs often claim. They are mere agreements, and thus are subject to being re-visited at any point where they appear to be causing more social harm than good.

[sweetheart]

16. also, as a social libertarian

Property rights are part of the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Given the sanity of this powerful bill of rights, how could a libertarian system be in sync? Perhaps the right wing libertarians that are vehemently hated on this board are one issue, but my thinking is different on this... but first, please check in with what the world's human rights standards are:

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


AND the reason the US does not ratify the Universal declaration
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

These rights are empowering the liberty of ALL peoples to have equal opportunity in life... as for property, is it not just ONE issue that makes a life?

You have to see the libertarian principal in its wholistic form which is why i went to the entire platform in my earlier thread, as libertarian principals also involve intensive separation of corporation and state, money and state and education and state. I see these 3 issues as core to solving the conundrum on this thread.

In separating corporations/money and state, democracy would be totally restored. This would then make government truly a champion of the people's interests in overdevelopment and the biological impact of paving the continent. I am for intensive regulation, a lightweight regulator empowered to make proactive decisions on behalf of the public interest in all corporate markets... no property rights are absolute, as they are contingent on the state.

I am for a 100% inheritance tax over 5 million and a 100% gift tax over 5 million, and a 100% inheritance tax over 5 million. This would serve to correct the criminal imbalance of the kleptocracy to date in repressing equal opportunity.

By recognizing that without an educated civil community, the libertarian utopica cannot emerge, a wise libertarian might be much more socialist than the neocon scum.

One more note on the separation of education and state, as that is subtley rooted towards your question. I see this as not that the state does not support schooling, but rather that the state has no say in the content in the classroom.... the end of state brainwashing.... and this would serve to inspire indivdiual schools and educators to be their own libertarian centres of excellence, without huge central-control from DC. The impact on equal opportunity of a 100% inclusive lifetime learning society is by far the greatest force to achieve justice. By ending the sports-team universities and the state-supported sport franchises like how shrub scammed the public for the rangers stadium... libertarians would have none of that... and the impact on education of ending the corporate and state relationship would be the most empowering phenomena.

Methinks there is some good stuff here, and it needs to be seen in an overall context. Perhaps we don't hear enough from social libertarians, and perhaps we need a new party, "social libertarian party" so that the bloodlust evident in this thread vents on the real bad guys, and not on the people who support common ideals with greens and left democrats.