Teachers at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle decided to use Legos to teach children that private property is evil:
[T]he students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice . .. "
Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
The teachers were also disturbed that "some kids hoarded the "best" pieces, denied their classmates any access at all to the pretend town they were building."
The heavyhanded idiocy of the teachers speaks for itself. Even some of the little tykes weren't taken in:
Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying.
However, as a property professor I should point out that the teachers' experiment in common property legos may have some educational value, though not the kind that the teachers intended. Giving Legos to a large group of children without allowing any kind of private ownership rights is a great way to demonstrate the dangers of what we law and economics types call the tragedy of the commons.
If kids are not allowed to "hoard" Lego pieces, it is unlikely that an impressive-looking Lego town can be built in the first place. If there is no right to exclude of the kind decried by the teachers, any Lego town that does get built is likely to be quickly destroyed by other children looking for Lego pieces to use for their own projects. Avoiding tragedies of the commons is one of the main reasons why private property is an essential social institution, and the Seattle teachers have, however unintentionally, stumbled on a new way to teach children about it.
UPDATE: There is an obvious irony in the teachers' position on private property. According to its website, the Hilltop Children's Center is a private school that requires parents to pay tuition, as well as a $50 fee just for getting on the waiting list for potential future admission. In order to support itself and pay the teachers' salaries, Hilltop relies on private property and its associated right to exclude - exactly the institutions that the teachers are trying to indoctrinate the children against.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Different Approach to Teaching Kids About Private Property:
- Great Moments in Education - Of Legos, Private Property, and the Tragedy of the Commons:
Like Friedman, I would not use the power of the state to shut this school down. That doesn't mean that I can't criticize their silly curriculum. Similar things happen in public schools too, of course, and probably much more often.
(note: we used heavy cardboard boxes rather than LEGOs, but I think the point holds regardless.)
Teacher: So, Sally, if you had two bowls of ice cream, would you give one of them to the other kids so they could have some ice cream?
Sally: Yes.
Teacher: And if you had two bags of candy, you'd let the other kids have one, wouldn't you?
Sally: Yes.
Teacher: So why won't you share your Legos?
Sally: Because I have two boxes of Legos!
" I see no harm in inviting children -- and adults -- to consider the possibility that a social structure that supports and services corporate capitalism -- and many individuals -- might not necessarily be the only or best means of determining how to allocate property."
And, this alternative to capitalism has worked so well, where?
There is an obvious difference between "inviting consideration" of an alternative and heavyhanded indoctrination in its supposed virtues.
Did they force the kids to share? you bet. but how is it any different from forcing kids to share the bouncy ball during recess?
Did they yell at or threaten the kids with any negative consequences? No. How are the teachers actions different from making a child pay attention to his history lesson?
What differentiates this lesson from all of the other lessons taught that makes this heavy handed, aside from the fact that you disagree with the lesson?
You are a flaming hypocrite. If the private school was teaching the virtues of laisze-faire, you'd be screaming how horrible. You don't have a problem because they're teaching your favorite idealogy. Communism.
I would guess a fair number of kids noticed that in the wonderful world of collectivism, its not the people who bought the legos, or worked to acquire and gather up the legos, or had an idea on how to express themselves with legos that decided what should be done with the legos. Instead it was a couple of pin heads who neither provided the legos, worked to acquire the legos, or had any more inspiration about what to do with the legos than build a bunch of cookie cutter square flat ugly houses.
Following that the lesson of why work at all to build my house when the pin heads in charge will make all the others provide me a house that is equal in quality to the house of the hardest working, brightest, and best of them.
Next lesson after that is. Hey where did all the houses go? But at least we are all equal living on the dirt with no houses.
Says the "Dog"
As for Mac's question, the answers is, of course nowhere, if all one measures a just social arrangement by is access to technology and a high percentage of a population's access to material goodies. Given that the capitalist system hasn't managed to iron out its own inequities to the satisfaction of those of us who think that there's more to life than capital accumulation and the assistance in that endeavor, I'm inclined to hope we can arrive at some better arrangement, one that does not involve a command economy or central planning. I recognize, however, that my hopes may be in vain. That does not, however, argue against acknowledging the traditional virtues of sharing, generosity, and sharing or the moral limits of capitalism.
Believe me, I have taught lots of things I do not believe in.
AT least call it what you really mean, legalized theft by the government aka forced redistribution of wealth. The definition of generosity is that it comes from the heart, not from the point of a gun. But pray tell me, which society as racially diverse as America is as prosperous? Don't give the usual Sweden. They're lily-white.
My kids have been subject to this collectivist crapola since they've been playing with crayolas. One of their high school history teachers, when asked why their curriculum is so Marxist, answered that his department felt that the kids already get capitalist "indoctrination" from their families and "deserve a differing perspective." After my jaw dropped, I said, "You're talking about kids from Manhattan families, where the most common bumber sticker is 'Impeach Bush'?" Yeah, he replied, as if I had somehow proved his point.
Ironically, it turns out that this teacher may have been right. At a recent dinner, my kids were debating whether or not they would have a competitive advantage against their peers who were basically being taught that competition is bad.
To the cute little puppy dog, you failed to answer a single one of my questions.
Ah, that's your response to a legitimate point. Begone troll.
EIDE_Interface,
How is this a legitimate point. He insults me, makes conjectures about what I believe, and then calls me a commie. If you think this is legitimate, you belong in class with the rest of the school kids. Had you even bothered to read my post, you'll see that I didn't say whether or not the lesson plan was a good or bad one...I only took issues with the OPs description of it.
Only a Commie would have an issue with the OP's desc. I'm pretty sure you have an issue with Milton Friedman too.
HAHAHAHA...and you call me a troll? talk about hypocritical...
Well, for one thing, there are two sides to the issue and the teachers are teaching it as if there are not. Sharing a ball generally isn't intended to teach kids that private property is bad; when it is, I would object to making kids share balls too.
And negative consequences are irrelevant. They fed one-sided propaganda to kids who, since they are kids, can't really analyze the propaganda or see what's wrong with it except occasionally in very crude terms that are flawed by adult standards. Kids are susceptible to this sort of thing.
Have people been assuming that the Legos were privately owned by students? That doesn't seem to be the case — they apparently belong to the school. Some of the older kids were monopolizing the Legos and excluding other kids from using them. I would certainly have reservations about enrolling my child in a school where some of the best toys were unavailable to her. (In fairness, I also have reservations about a school where the teachers feel that anti-property propaganda is appropriate as seems to be the case here, even if the lego incident is not an instance of it.)
Is this any more ironic than Ilya Somin whoring out his principles and sucking off the public teet with his job at George Mason University? When you get a job at a private university, instead of leeching off taxpayers for your livelihood, then you might be in a position to criticize such ironies.
Actually, a little more pragmatism is called for. We have to take society as we get it. You work at a public university, which goes against the selfish "me! me! me!" libertarian "principles" as it collects taxes through "coercion" to support a public goal. Those taxes, all obtained through "coercion" then goes to your salary. Which means your nothing more than a thief, as the agent and beneficiary of a thief.
Should we blame you? I don't think so. You did not choose to live in a world with public universities, and you needed a job. What better place than a hypocritical public university with libertarian tendencies where a libertarian leaning faculty can suck off the publc teet, even while advocating the destruction of the hand that feeds them. I don't blame such libertarian faculty as violating principle, because they did not choose the situation to begin with -- they just have to live with it.
I think the same goes for the Hilltop Children's Center. Obviously, it is impossible to run such a center without resources, and in our society, one cannot access resources (including natural resources not created by humans) unless one has money. Overall, it is ridiculous to point this out as an irony. At least as one that is worthy of criticism.
Last point. With respect to your tragedy of the commons problem, that assumes a lousy upbringing and poor values. Maybe YOU would not contribute to a collective lego project, and maybe YOU would, in essence, misappropriate (steal) community resources. But we cannot assume a priori that most people are like you.
By the way, the threat of stealing resources is applicable to private property as well. There are selfish people who steal other people's private property. Guess what, if people did not have self-restraint in this regard, private property would not work as a system. So, no matter what, a society cannot work with people systematically lacking values and willing to disregard the interests of others. Obviously, there will always be a minority of selfish people, sociopaths, and the like. And they need to be controlled, in any kind of system. That they need to be controlled in a system such as that in the thought experiment advanced by Hilltop Children's Center just as they need to be controlled in other systems is really no argument, or at best, a pathetic argument.
Overall, I like the experiment at Hilltop Children's Center. Not because I am against private property, but because I think thought experiments and discussing the slaughter of your sacred cow is worthy. Apparently, the "free market" likes what the center is doing as well. Or is the existence of this organization a market failure?
My view is that we should take a pragmatic approach, combining public and private, depending on the particular situation. But that goes against the simplistic libertarian dogma, doesn't it? The libertarian dogma is that private property is always the answer to all problems everywhere. It is kind of like the mirror image of communism. Both are extreme and disreputable philosophies.
"David P. Lyons you have convinced me of the benefits of sharing. Please send me half of your money."
Ahh... the joys of strawmen to feed the egos of those whose self-image would otherwise be destroyed because they cannot come up with real arguments is ever present.
Here we go again...
selfish "me! me! me!" libertarian "principles"
Had to point out this nonsense. Its a common emotionalist criticism of libertarianism designed to make libertarians look like selfish, heartless, materialistic wretches.
A more accurate analogy is that libertarians are for "Rights! Rights! Rights!" - as in property rights and other fundamental rights for everyone. Even for people that obnoxiously and willfully misrepresent libertarianism - like yourself.
Obviously, there will always be a minority of selfish people, sociopaths, and the like. And they need to be controlled, in any kind of system.
As long as you don't have the selfish people and the sociopaths trying to classify normal people are "selfish" and "sociopathic" so that they can try to control them. Sort of like what you try to do with your remarks above.
Everyone should be under your control, right Viscus? Especially with these nonsensical categories of consensual sex that magically aren't consensual when you decide, right?
Given that the capitalist system hasn't managed to iron out its own inequities to the satisfaction of those of us who think that there's more to life than capital accumulation and the assistance in that endeavor, I'm inclined to hope we can arrive at some better arrangement, one that does not involve a command economy or central planning
Unfortunately too often the "inequities" of capitalism aren't a failing of capitalism itself, but the result of state meddling in capitalism. So you have exacerbated boom-bust cycles thanks to central banking and fiat currency, inflation thanks to central banking and fiat currency, higher unemployment due to minimum wage and other regulations, a weaker economy due to higher taxes, etc, etc, etc....
You of course misstate the tragedy of the commons conundrum. It is used as an example of why government regulation is necessary for "commons" that are not easily subject to private ownership (e.g., water, air), not as an argument to allot everything into private hands.
TCS Daily probably took the anti-private property quotes out of context or just made them up. I doubt they even bothered to interview anyone at the school.
What does a volunteer collaborative effort have to do with a collective-ownership economic system? Nothing. In the legos-communism world, you don't join or leave at will, able to use resources from elsewhere to allow you to donate your own time and effort to the extent that you want to, at will. In the legos-communism world, you have only that world in which you have no private property and must put all your effort into a system which then doles out the collective resources and reward to you as it sees fit.
The two have nothing in common.
Yeah right. And the failings of socialism aren't a failing of socialism itself, but the result of imperfect application of socialist principles and the constant attempts of international capitalism to defeat it.
Some people sue it for that. You can also recognize the tragedy of the commons as the tragedy of lack-of-property rights and find ways to institute property rights where they are not, since of course government regulation doesn't actually solve anything and only makes the problems worse. Hence institution of property rights over pollution in the form of pollution credit, etc.
"TCS Daily probably took the anti-private property quotes out of context or just made them up. I doubt they even bothered to interview anyone at the school."
When you don't like the facts, assume that people made them up. Might as well just stick your fingers in your ears.
Why not look at what causes the failings, rather than just assume that the two sides are assuming incorrectly where the blame lays?
Unemployment is quite provably worsened by things like instituting minimum wages, for example. So, can one blame a free market for it? Other things, like very rich and in relative terms very "poor" are quite evidently correlated positively with the freeness of the market. If that is your "inequity" then I will concede it. I don't see it as a problem, of course, given that the relatively poor in the free market are in absolute terms better off than the richest under socialism, and broadly speaking middle class in a mixed economy.
Sorry, but TCS Daily is not a credible source. Simple as that. They are extremely biased and play fast and loose with the facts, often just making stuff up, to advance their agenda.
Some people sue it for that. You can also recognize the tragedy of the commons as the tragedy of lack-of-property rights and find ways to institute property rights where they are not, since of course government regulation doesn't actually solve anything and only makes the problems worse. Hence institution of property rights over pollution in the form of pollution credit, etc.
Government regulation solves a lot (just look how much cleaner our air and water is than it was 40 years ago). Your example of pollution credits isn't even pertinent. Pollution credits are not a "property right", they are just an alternative form of government regulation.
Really, then why are there more desperately poor people, and more wild economic swings, in countries where there are is more free-wheeling capitalism rather than the more heavily regulated capitalism that has evolved in the west since the inter-war period?
Teachers, on the other hand, aren't so bright. Idiot projects encourage cynicism at a young age.
Which free-wheeling capitalist countries do you speak of?
This is rich, coming from JF Thomas of all people! LOL.
I guess we don't need that silly EPA after all!
Property rights and markets provide more humane method of controlling the selfish and the sociopaths than most alternative economics systems. Of course, one of the benefits of capitalism is the "Invisible Hand," which often causes selfish people and even sociopaths to work to the benefit of others.
Aren't property rights a form of government regulation? In other words, the government regulates the usage of property based on who owns the property.
You don't have to be a free-market fundamentalist to support property rights. Plenty of people (like myself) primarly support property rights because they are effective public policy.
I don't think that the government creates the right. It seems to be inalienable - we observe the concept of "mine" in even small children.
The government does enforce and protect the right, through laws against theft and robbery, and in the case of land, through a system of registering titles. In many cases, particularly in the case of registering land titles, well thought out government involvement can enhance the right by creating a system for free and clear titles.
But the government doesn't create the right to property by government regulation.
I should also ask how this is an attempt at indoctrination? Was the message repeated over and over again for the entire year? Did this subliminal messages or some other form of trickery? Did they tape the kids' eyelids open and force them to watch videos indefinitely? If not, then how does this lesson differ from other lessons, say the history of our government for example.
Besides not mentioning that countries who have tried this "cooperative system" have had to put walls and fences up around their countries and maintain a massive standing army to keep people
to continue...
inside? One would hope that teaching the history of our government is somewhat based on facts. That is one big difference. However, taking your argument at fact value, you would then have no problem with the teaching of say, creationism since no one is taping their eyelids open, etc.?
I agree. I believe that private ownership of property is inherent in the concept of liberty expressed as an inalienable right in our founding documents.
Says the "Dog"
You're assuming information not mentioned in any of the articles. How do you know what they teach about communist russia? Have you sat in every one of their history lectures? Or are you just making up stuff?
As to your creationism argument, I do in fact have a problem with the teaching of it, but not because it's indoctrination or heavy handed. I have a problem with it because it attempts to undermine science and the separation of church and state. FYI, people can be opposed to different things for different reasons...well...some of us can anyway.
One poster makes the comment that the legos were apparently public property and not the private property of individual students who brought their legos to class. This is a good point/distinction. If we assume the legos were the public property of the school then a lesson that the use of "public property" should be made for the greatest benefit of all members of the public would be no problem to anyone. Again, however lessons about the use of public property and its place in a society that values personal individual freedom without all the anti-capitalist rational. Obviously the concept of public property and public good and public use exists in a capitalist society, and lessons about same don't require the renunciation or demonization of capitalism.
So clearly more was going on with this lesson than a teaching about the moral good of voluntary sharing/charity or the moral good of establishing some public use property within a society of free individuals. It is this to which people are objecting, imho.
Further, the anti-capitalist statements attributed to the teachers indicate they haven't the slightest idea what it means to be personally free, to enjoy the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness or how economies develop or are derived as a society develops. If they did understand these things then they would understand personal individual freedom and capitalism are two sides of the very same coin. Its personal individual freedom that results in a capitalist economy because economic systems are determined/developed by people interacting with each other. When free individuals deal with their property AND/OR labor (within a society of laws not violence) and interact with other free individuals and their property AND/OR labor capitalism is what always results. When individuals are not free to deal with their property as they see fit and/or are not free to put their labor to the uses they choose because of force and coercion of government dictating what labor will be used for and what goods are produced or traded then non-capitalist socialist/communist economies are produced/developed. However, non-capitalist societies always and only exist at the cost of huge losses in personal individual freedom for people to decide for themselves how to apply their own labor, energies, and property in the exercise of their inalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Says the "Dog"
Says the "Dog"
I like this idea, of inalienable rights. Many libertarians do not. You see, they think anything and every right should be alienable and available for sale to the highest bidder. This is what you get when your only "principle" for ordering moral relations is "consent" and you fail to adopt a more robust and serious argument for inalienable human rights and dignity.
For these reasons, American Psikhushka is simply wrong about many libertarians. They really are empty moral relativists who think anything is justified when consent is forthcoming. They do not believe in inalienable rights. As such, they have an impoverished view of rights.
So it is incorrect to say libertarianism is about rights. It is about exactly nothing, except for a procedural requirement (albeit often an important procedural requirement) that consent be forthcoming before you harm someone and violate their rights.
Why do libertarians want to be able to buy other people's fundamental rights? (1) Because they think people are "better off" being able to sell fundamental rights that should be inalienable, failing to realize that there should be a collective obligation to ensure that no one is in a desperate enough situation such that they would rationally desire to sell of a fundmental right and (2) libertarians probably enjoy exploiting others enough of the time, that it would be seen as unfortunate if they couldn't "buy" their rights.
So, yes, libertarian philosophy is all about "me! me! me!" They do not believe in obligations to others and they want to have others in desperate situations available for exploitation through "consensual" transactions. If you look at the socioeconomic profile of libertarians, they are not themselves in a position where they are themselves on the losing end of the bargain.
Overall, libertarians tend toward moral relativism. They have no fixed understanding of morality (anything is acceptable as long as there is consent, forget about the desperate conditions of the other party and forget about whether they are simply unselfish and not looking to maximize in a transaction even while you are). They fail to grasp the idea that consent is not everything in a world where some people are selfish, and others are not. They reject the idea that we have any unchosen obligations towards our fellow human beings. They wrongly assume that this is the best possible world, all based on the supposition all people are, at there core, selfish and self-centered.
I think libertarians are projecting. It is indeed the "me! me! me!" philosophy. What else do you make of someone who asserts that "all humans are at there core selfish." When someone says such a thing, there is a correct inference we can make about the speaker, even if we do not learn much of anything at all about humanity in general from such a statement.
Finally, libertarians are not about rights. They do not tend to believe in a robust set of inalienable rights.
In the end, libertarians appear to me to tend towards moral degeneracy, having no clear sense of moral order. That is why, as a liberal, I much prefer conservatives. At least they have some sense of values, however flawed that sense may be.
"I think libertarians are projecting. It is indeed the "me! me! me!" philosophy. What else do you make of someone who asserts that "all humans are at there core selfish." When someone says such a thing, there is a correct inference we can make about the speaker, even if we do not learn much of anything at all about humanity in general from such a statement. "
With all due respect, Viscus, I think any parent would tell you the same thing.
I'll leave it to the libertarians to respond to your post in depth. I will say that your description of libertarians seems to me to be completely wrong or such an exaggerated farce as to become completely wrong. However, I'll leave it to the libertarians to provide in detailed response.
Just to be clear, the statement above strikes me as being overly broad and leaning far too much towards a living breathing definition of inalienable rights that could be easily transformed to mean anything is an inalienable right. I certainly, and I don't think conservatives as a whole would agree with such a proposition. There is a great distinction between the right to personally own or enjoy if you will the property that one purchases, trades for or builds with or through the use of their own labor/efforts/industry and the "rights" that seem to be stated in your post that some people have the "right" to someone else's property, labor, efforts, industry.
Their is no inalienable right to take or possess someone else's property or labor inherent in the concept of liberty as used in founding documents. Liberty as used in our founding documents refers to the personal individual rights of free individuals. The concept of having a "right" to someone else's property or labor means having a right to enslave or take by force the property of individuals. Obviously such a "right" to enslave or take by force the property/labor of others is diametrically opposed to the concepts of personal individual freedom embodied in the inalienable right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in our founding documents.
The "right" of one individual to the property/labor of others is a concept used by dictators and oligarchs to steal from the people they control by force and threats of force, and is not a concept that has any relevance to the inalienable right of liberty and pursuit of happiness in our founding documents.
The failure to understand these differences is what makes do gooder liberals happily march themselves and others (whether they want to or not) into effective slavery to an all powerful centralized government from time to time.
Says the "Dog"
"Mac,
You're assuming information not mentioned in any of the articles. How do you know what they teach about communist russia? Have you sat in every one of their history lectures? Or are you just making up stuff?
As to your creationism argument, I do in fact have a problem with the teaching of it, but not because it's indoctrination or heavy handed. I have a problem with it because it attempts to undermine science and the separation of church and state. FYI, people can be opposed to different things for different reasons...well...some of us can anyway."
Oh Brian, make up your mind. Are you going to argue about exactly what was said in a place where neither you nor I were, or are you going to argue the principle? You have made a lot of assumptions as well. We are arguing about the assumptions. If you can't defend your statements fine, but quit changing the point of the arguement.
As to your statement that you would be against Creationism as it is not scientific, fine. However, neither is it scientific to argue that coerced "cooperation" is a great thing. You can not point to any instance even in recent human history where it has not been an unmitigated disater. That is a fact. What we are arguing about their teaching (as opposed to what they may or may not have taught) is whether or not they are indoctrinating children with an utterly failed economic concept and whether or not that is a good thing. Their "assumed" arguments are equally fallible, unscientific and opposed to the facts as is Creationism. It is a ""faith" based argument as not only is there not a shred of evidence that it works to the benefit of Mankind, but the facts are incontrovertible thast is works to the detriment of Mankind. Therefore, if you support teaching this, you should support teaching Creationism. The foundation of either is completely unscientific and is therefore based on faith and wishful thinking.
First:
I think you need to go check up on the founders some more. You seem to forget about their slave owning tendencies. So, it seems to me that you are projecting your own ideals into the founding documents, rather than considering the actual society that created them.
Second:
I am not making a strawman out of libertarians. Many in fact do believe that morality revolves around consent. And as such, they are nothing more than moral relativists.
Third:
I am perfectly glad to respect that people "earn" things and should often have exclusive control over them. But, it should also be recognized that much of what is produced is a social product. We do not live in a vacuum.
Fourth:
We all have unchosen obligations towards others. For example, you have a duty to defend the country from attack, if called upon. In general, we have a collective responsibility for others. I am not against private property. But a conception of humanity that thinks that property or consent are all that matters is a morally vacuous one.
Fifth:
We may disagree about what rights should be inalienable and which should not. We may disagree about what unchosen duties we owe each other. But, when one denies the existence of any inalienable rights and unchosen duties, they have gone down the path to moral degeneracy.
As such, I would vote for a conservative over a libertarian any day.
Sixth:
There is no such thing as a right, without a duty. If you have a right to anything, that creates a duty (affirmative or negative) in someone else.
First. You are confusing mere selfish tendencies, expressed to greater or lesser degrees in different contexts, with selfishness at one's core. You are also ignoring acts of kindness and regard for others that even children express.
Second. Parents have a duty to teach their children better. If one has selfish inclinations, those inclinations should be resisted. You should learn to become more than Pavlov's dog.
Irrelevant for the purpose of discussing the inalienable right to property ownership that is inherent in the inalienable right to Liberty described in our founding documents. Slavery was wrong because it violates the inalienable right to liberty. The founders expressed this right in our founding documents that is without dispute. The fact that at that time they were not perfect practitioners of this ideal is irrelevant to its meaning then or now.
If you accept that one has an inalienable right to liberty (personal individual freedom) a simple analysis yields this liberty right includes the inalienable right to private property ownership. The essence of personal individual freedom (liberty) is to decide for oneself what to do and not do. Should I hunt this animal, build this house, sleep by the stream, get an education, go to work in the morning? These are but how the inalienable right to life and liberty are expressed or actualized. The fruits of these decisions, acquisition of house, animal hides, cash, etc. can not be taken from the individual without depriving that individual of his/her liberty. For liberty would be a hollow and empty concept if it did not include the fruits of ones actualization of that liberty (i.e. the fruits of their labor, industry, effort, and skills).
I never said you were. I said your definitions and descriptions of libertarians appeared to me to be quite inaccurate and/or so exaggerated to be in effect in accurate. I left it to libertarians to defend the characterizations you wrote, as I have no interest in trying to define to you what it means to be a libertarian.
That's great but you've got it backwards. The way you express things is from a point of view that liberty does NOT include any private property ownership unless that private property ownership right flows from government. That is the opposite of the truth. The truth is as I clearly showed above that private property ownership (the fruits of one's labor, effort, and skill) is the essence of the expression of the inalienable right to liberty. Those rights then do not flow from government, but instead flow (as stated by the founders) from nature and nature's god. Such inalienable rights are all inclusive and do not flow from government. Such inalienable rights may be infringed by government pursuant to due process of law as established by the consent of the governed. You state it backwards by stating, in effect, that there are no rights to private property except those that are granted to individuals by government. By stating it backwards not only do you reveal you do not understand the concept of an inalienable right to liberty as expressed by our founders, but that you believe in opposition to our founding principals that all power and all rights rest originally with the government and not with the people, and further that the people only have those rights to property/liberty that the government decides to grant to the people. Again the complete opposite of our founding documents and traditions and as a result a completely wrong way of conceptualizing a discussion of the inalienable rights contained in our founding documents.
Absolutely wrong from the standpoint of what rights that flow to free men from nature and nature's god exist. The obligations about which you speak may arise because of belief in a higher being or as a result of due process of law granted to a government through the consent of the governed but they do NOT originate at the original source of things (such as inalienable rights that flow from nature and nature's god like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). These things about which you are speaking are conceptions of man and expressed through the consent of the governed. They do not flow from the government to the people. Again, that would be backwards from the nature of things as described in our founding documents.
See above. These are concepts that arise from the consent of the governed (i.e. they flow from man not nature and nature's god) and are perfectly alienable because the governed can withdraw their consent to these concepts any time the choose. They are alienable rights not inalienable rights. However, again they do not flow from government but flow from the consent of the governed that empowers the government in such areas.
Now we get to the heart of things. This is a moral argument. Perhaps a noble moral argument. But morality exists as a layer in society above the foundational elements of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again these are concepts that may be good, but they derive NOT from nature and nature's god as do the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but instead derive from the consent of the governed. Society is free to enact these kinds of moral decisions through the government the governed empower, but they don't have to do it. Its not fundamental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Such a disagreement in the context of our founding documents is not possible as I've demonstrated above. You are confusing rights established through laws from the consent of the governed with rights that established NOT by man or the consent of the governed but by nature and nature's god. It is only those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are endowed to man from the creator that are inalienable rights. All other rights are not inalienable rights but rights created in law by the processes of government established by the consent of the governed. They are created by man and may be revoked by man. Unlike those rights that endowed by the creator and include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't think libertarians deny the existence of inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Quite the opposite in fact. As for morality, duties, and rights created by law those are NOT inalienable rights as clearly shown above.
Don't confuse law and morality rights that you would like to see adopted by society with inalienable rights that flow from the creator as described in our founding documents. Doing so would be the height of narcissism because it implies a belief that your morality and your laws are the only ones that are not degenerate. You compound this error by thinking that government is empowered with all rights and responsibilities and power and the people only have those rights and powers that are granted to them by government. You wrongly, but impliedly assume, that such all powerful government would embody the morality you prefer and exercise its unlimited power pursuant to such morality. Such assumptions are quite dangerous, and have always proven to be the enemy of personal individual freedom expressed through the inalienable rights that flow from the creator and not government and known as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You offer no proof or support for this bald assertion. Again you are confusing your own preferred morality (which may be good or bad I'm not saying) that flows from your mind and ideals with inalienable rights that flow from the creator (not from government and not from you or any other man).
Says the "Dog"
did you read my original post? I am not arguing the principle. I specifically said I WAS NOT GOING TO ARGUE IT. I was arguing the description of the incident as presented in the online articles.
It is you who have changed my argument. you and other posters took my argument that what the teachers were doing is indoctrination and warped it into some bizarre idea that I agree with every single communist or socialist agenda out there. Just because you can't provide a counterargument to mine doesn't give you the right to create strawmen. Just agree with me and move on rather than have some ineffectual knee jerk reaction.
Another strawman. wow you must be really tired from building all of them. I did not make the claim that cooperation is scientific or unscientific. They are also not teaching the concepts of cooperation in science class like they tried to do with creationism. They are completely different and unrelated scenarios. Your bizarre attempt to link them notwithstanding.
I like this idea, of inalienable rights. Many libertarians do not. You see, they think anything and every right should be alienable and available for sale to the highest bidder. This is what you get when your only "principle" for ordering moral relations is "consent" and you fail to adopt a more robust and serious argument for inalienable human rights and dignity.
No, this is false. In our last discussion you were asked to provide examples for this "consent is everything" concept. You provided three examples - the million dollar glass of water, the hand-sawing off fetishist, and "less than consensual" sex. I addressed those and explained how I believed most libertarians would not behave how you claimed that they would. I'll recap:
(1) Million dollar water glass - I explained how this would be most likely viewed by libertarians as a form of coercion and would not be approved of. I also explained that there were civil and criminal laws against this and that you do not hear of libertarians urging their repeal, even though you hear of them urging the repeal of many others.
(2) Fetishist who wants you to saw his arm off - I explained how most libertarians did not believe in unnecessarily hurting people, including the mentally ill, as someone with this kind of request most likely is. I also explained how most libertarians believe in violence only for self-defense, and would not countenance unncecessary or pathological violence.
(3) "Less than consensual" sex - I explained how many libertarians believe that sex between consenting adults is acceptable. I did mention that most believe in honesty as well and that consensual sex that involved a high degree of dishonesty might not actually be consensual. So in this case as well I believe libertarians would not believe what you claim they believe.
So you came up with three examples and in all three cases I explained to you why I believed that the vast majority of libertarians would not behave how you claim that they would behave and do not believe what you claim they believe.
Now you're saying the same kinds of things and making the same claims. Provide more examples of how libertarians believe or would behave like this and we can discuss them. Other than that you are just providing conjecture.
For these reasons, American Psikhushka is simply wrong about many libertarians. They really are empty moral relativists who think anything is justified when consent is forthcoming. They do not believe in inalienable rights. As such, they have an impoverished view of rights.
Back this up. Where are your examples? This is just conjecture with some blanket ad hominem attacks mixed in for good measure.
And libertarians are against coercive force and fraud. Don't try to say that libertarians are OK with any consent, even fraudulently induced consent.
Why do libertarians want to be able to buy other people's fundamental rights?
Conjecture. Where's your example of this?
(1) Because they think people are "better off" being able to sell fundamental rights that should be inalienable, failing to realize that there should be a collective obligation to ensure that no one is in a desperate enough situation such that they would rationally desire to sell of a fundmental right and
No, libertarians are extremely interested in making sure that the economy is less hampered to it will be stronger and more robust. If this were to occur there would be many less people in desperate situations and there would be a greater ability to help the remaining few that would be left in desperate situations.
(2) libertarians probably enjoy exploiting others enough of the time, that it would be seen as unfortunate if they couldn't "buy" their rights.
Conjecture and offensive, insulting conjecture at that. Again, libertarians are against coercive force and fraud so their actual beliefs are in direct contradiction to your statement here.
They do not believe in obligations to others and they want to have others in desperate situations available for exploitation through "consensual" transactions.
Define the "obligations to others" they do not believe in.
I just explained how libertarians support policy initiatives that would result in less people being in desperate situations. So that is the exact opposite of what you claim.
If you look at the socioeconomic profile of libertarians, they are not themselves in a position where they are themselves on the losing end of the bargain.
Nonsense, there are libertarians of all economic levels. And there aren't many rich and famous libertarians. Most of the wealthy and famous are statists on either the left or right. You may be confusing libertarians with conservatives, there are big differences.
Overall, libertarians tend toward moral relativism. They have no fixed understanding of morality (anything is acceptable as long as there is consent, forget about the desperate conditions of the other party and forget about whether they are simply unselfish and not looking to maximize in a transaction even while you are).
More conjecture. Let's see your examples. Please describe these transactions where the libertarians are taking advantage of the "unselfish".
They fail to grasp the idea that consent is not everything in a world where some people are selfish, and others are not.
Wrong. The examples you provided where you claimed that libertarians would believe "consent is everything" were all shot down. If you're still claiming this, let's see some new examples.
They reject the idea that we have any unchosen obligations towards our fellow human beings.
Conjecture. Define these "unchosen obligations" and explain why you claim libertarians reject them.
They wrongly assume that this is the best possible world, all based on the supposition all people are, at there core, selfish and self-centered.
Dead wrong. Libertarians are quite disgusted with the current world and wish their policies were implemented so it could be made better and more free.
In the end, libertarians appear to me to tend towards moral degeneracy, having no clear sense of moral order. That is why, as a liberal, I much prefer conservatives. At least they have some sense of values, however flawed that sense may be.
More conjecture. Libertarians have a strong sense of values, very much based on rights, including the inalienable rights you mention.
He doesn't need to offer proof for this. It is a well respected philosophical idea. If you want detailed proofs and/or counterarguments, pick up a book.
If you have a right to life, then that means other people have a duty not to kill you. If other people didn't have that duty, then your right is meaningless. It's a very simple idea. To use the idea of this post, if you have a right to private property, then others have a duty not to destroy it, steal it, damage it, reduce its value, etc... Without the associated duty, there is no right.
First:
I think you need to go check up on the founders some more. You seem to forget about their slave owning tendencies. So, it seems to me that you are projecting your own ideals into the founding documents, rather than considering the actual society that created them.
Its true that many of the founders owned slaves. But some realized the inherent contradiction. Washington actually acted on it and freed his slaves.
And recognize that the American Revolution was quite unique - virtually the whole world at the time had either a monarchy, a theocracy, or some kind of tribe/clan structure.
Second:
I am not making a strawman out of libertarians. Many in fact do believe that morality revolves around consent. And as such, they are nothing more than moral relativists.
This is addressed in my other response.
Third:
I am perfectly glad to respect that people "earn" things and should often have exclusive control over them. But, it should also be recognized that much of what is produced is a social product. We do not live in a vacuum.
And the function of government is to protect property and individual rights, not violate them.
Fourth:
We all have unchosen obligations towards others. For example, you have a duty to defend the country from attack, if called upon. In general, we have a collective responsibility for others. I am not against private property. But a conception of humanity that thinks that property or consent are all that matters is a morally vacuous one.
Define what you call the "collective responsibility for others". And libertarianism does not posit the notion "property or consent are all that matters". Fundamental human and civil rights are also a big part of the picture.
Fifth:
We may disagree about what rights should be inalienable and which should not. We may disagree about what unchosen duties we owe each other. But, when one denies the existence of any inalienable rights and unchosen duties, they have gone down the path to moral degeneracy.
This is complete claptrap. Certain inalienable rights are core values of libertarianism. And you still have to define all of these "unchosen duties".
Sixth:
There is no such thing as a right, without a duty. If you have a right to anything, that creates a duty (affirmative or negative) in someone else.
Define this, with examples.
Of course it does, especially in the case of land. Without government, no one would have a valid claim to land. What gives anyone the right to a property claim to a piece of land other than the government granting title to that land? Certainly, every square inch of this country didn't belong to anyone (or at least we did not recognize the title to that land) until the government (or the various prior colonial governments) created those rights.
If you have a right to life, then that means other people have a duty not to kill you. If other people didn't have that duty, then your right is meaningless. It's a very simple idea. To use the idea of this post, if you have a right to private property, then others have a duty not to destroy it, steal it, damage it, reduce its value, etc... Without the associated duty, there is no right.
This is a very stilted, awkward way to phrase things. Do you really think you walk around with a "duty" not to murder other people? Do you think you should be given credit for the "duty" of not committing crime or torts?
It seems more accurate to say people have a right to life and it is a crime and/or tort for you to violate that right. And it seems that my right - and my right to defend that right - exists whether or not you feel you have a duty to honor it. The "right-duty" pairing seems like an odd, collectivist way to view things.
You're just using different words to describe fundamentally the same thing. The law/tort system is the legal embodiment of of those duties and serve to punish people who break their duty. I actually think your phraseology is more awkward simply because you need to use more words and a slash to describe the same thing.
Your not does not exist without other people's duty to honor. Otherwise I can make up a right to kick anyone's butt whenever I want. If you don't have a duty to bend over, then my right is meaningless.
Yeah right. And the failings of socialism aren't a failing of socialism itself, but the result of imperfect application of socialist principles and the constant attempts of international capitalism to defeat it.
No, socialism is the result of more government meddling. Socialism (statism) is on a continuum on the opposite end of libertarianism, at least as far as economics is concerned.
Really, then why are there more desperately poor people, and more wild economic swings, in countries where there are is more free-wheeling capitalism rather than the more heavily regulated capitalism that has evolved in the west since the inter-war period?
Where do you get this? The poorest you can get is starving to death, and you get the most of those in communist/socialist countries. Many feel and have pretty strongly demonstrated that economic swings are exacerbated by fiat currency and central bank manipulation, which are socialist/interventionist/statist measures.
How is walking around with a duty not to murder someone else any different from walking around with the legal obligation not to murder someone else? The reason why neither of which are necessary (in most cases) is that we have internalized the right to life and its associated duty. It is a part of our culture. Contrast this to the Pashtun culture where if someone commits a wrong against you, you have the right to kill them and they have a duty to honor your right (not without a struggle though). This duty will actually be enforced by tribal councils (unless another arrangement can be reached).
As to the second question, I did not say any such thing or imply any such thing. That's like expecting to be praised for breathing. "good boy, you didn't kill anyone today...have a cake" It's ridiculous.
Technically, with a few exceptions, Martha freed them. Washington granted his wife a life interest in his slaves (he couldn't free her dower slaves). She realized that this made her rather vulnerable, so she freed them all rather than live with the fear of being murdered.
'It is you who have changed my argument. you and other posters took my argument that what the teachers were doing is indoctrination and warped it into some bizarre idea that I agree with every single communist or socialist agenda out there."
I see now. You make a statement that neither I nor many other posters understand and it's EVERYONE else's fault. I got it.
Then why didn't you ask me to clarify? Why are you just now mentioning that you didn't understand? Why you were even commenting on and arguing about a comment you didn't understand?
That's a poor excuse for your actions. It also just proves my point about a "knee jerk reaction."
Second. Parents have a duty to teach their children better. If one has selfish inclinations, those inclinations should be resisted. You should learn to become more than Pavlov's dog.
Odd comparison as Pavlov's dogs were taught to respond a certain way that they would not do on their own.
However, I agree that children must be taught, but that was my point. You were implying that unselfishness is natural. Children who express acts of kindness towards others have been taught that by their parents. You are backpeddling when faced with the facts and are now trying to make some huge distinction between selfish tendancies and selfish to one's core. Your language is very imprecise. I don't even know how you would measure or define these in the real world, but you have suceeded in taking the argument very far afield from your original statement so you don't have to admit that your were wrong. We are not "naturally" unselfish and any parent knows that.
"Then why didn't you ask me to clarify? Why are you just now mentioning that you didn't understand? Why you were even commenting on and arguing about a comment you didn't understand?
That's a poor excuse for your actions. It also just proves my point about a "knee jerk reaction.""
Because if a person feels that NO ONE is understanding them, I would think that person just might figure out that they did not explain themselves very clearly. Or, is it just a whole lot easier and more disireable to blame everyone else, call them names and feel sorry for yourself? Quikte frankly, you telling me that I engaged a "knee jerk reaction" is quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle balck.
go back and re-read the my first post and the first couple responding to me. tell me what in my first post is confusing, and I'll gladly clarify. now explain to me how uncle milty's and junkyarddog's are anything but a knee-jerk reaction. If you contend it is not, which of my statements serve as the basis of their arguments? Your first post to me is essentially a rehashing of theirs, so you must see the same basis. where is it? Where on this board have I said "communism is great"? or that i was a socialist? or that i am against private property rights?
I will admit that your clarification of what was meant by rights and corresponding duties has some surface merit. Particularly as regards alienable rights that are established by governments empowered by the consent of the governed. However, it is less clear to me that this right/duty analysis applies to inalienable rights that flow from nature and nature's god as expressed in our founding documents. A person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exists irrespective of whether any other person recognizes this right or a duty not to infringe that right. Alienable rights on the other hand would seem to necessarily include the duty not violate same because man made rights are usually defined by providing some result, punishment, or legal reaction to the violation of such man made alienable rights.
Says the "Dog"
You might be naturally unselfish. But speak for yourself and stop projecting. I know myself, and I know I am not selfish.
I do find it amusing that you apparently think the idea of selfish at one's core versus mere selfish tendencies that occur as isolated incidents is a difficult distinction. Not exactly rocket science here.
The point about Pavlov's dog is also quite simple. Yes, Pavlov's dog does learn that a bell equals food. But the point about Pavlov's dog is not his capacity for learning. The point about Pavlov's dog is that he does not exercise restraint. All he does is follow his inclinations. Which is also all that selfish people do. What is always on the mind of a selfish person is what they want, not what is right.
You make much of the idea that children have to be taught. But that does not imply that they are selfish. It implies that they are undisciplined. It also implies that they lack perspective. (And it would be unreasonable to expect children to have perspective, given that they lack experience!) Indeed, it is hard to imagine how naturally selfish adults would teach their children to behave non-selfishlessly, or even why they would be motivated to do so. Unless, it had something to do with taking advantage of their children.
And as I love to point out to people who argue that "we" are naturally selfish, this tells us exactly nothing about "we" but it does tell us something about "you." Don't try to reduce us all to the moral degeneracy that is you, the libertarian. That is only mere projection.
I am not selfish. I act according to principle. I assist others with no expectation of reward or thanks, and not because it makes me feel good. That you don't comprehend this is a reasonable inference, given your assumptions about human nature.
Finally, with respect to whether being unselfish is "natural" or not, the question is entirely irrelevant, even though I would argue that there is nothing unnatural about unselfish behavior. As long as behaving in a principled manner can be taught, it must be taught. It is a necessity to rise above Pavlov's dog, a creature that is nothing more than inclination.
Libertarians and other sociopaths are not necessarily hopeless. However, they do need to learn to be even more disciplined than others, since they are much more selfish than others. The more one's natural inclinations vary from doing what is right, the more one needs to use their higher faculties of self-restraint, reason, and discipline.
JunkYardLawDog,
You may not draw any inferences from my failure to continue this discussion sooner other than that time is a scarce resource which I do not always have time to devote to philosophical discussions, no matter how interesting or worthy. I am sure that you must have had similar experiences yourself.
You might be naturally unselfish.
Should be:
You might be naturally selfish.
don't make assumptions about me...you have a very poor track record in that area. just because i chose to not argue certain things does not mean I agree with them. i have no desire to get into an ideological argument with someone like you. i have a limited amount of time and i pick and choose which arguments i will engage in. the fact that i "failed" to respond to something only means that i chose to not respond, nothing more.
In response to the second part of your post...if a right is inalienable that means it has inalienable duties. i also don't see where you are getting that the right to propery is a right given to us by "nature and nature's god". You need to provide some proof for this. if it is a "natural" right or a god-given right, why does it matter that it is expressed indirectly in the constitution?
"Alienable rights on the other hand would seem to necessarily include the duty not violate same because man made rights are usually defined by providing some result, punishment, or legal reaction to the violation of such man made alienable rights."
- inalienable rights are defined the same way in our legal system.
How do rights flow from nature? If it is the nature of man to club a woman over the head and drag her off as his mate, for example. Does that mean that man has an inalienable right to do that?
How do rights flow from nature? If it is the nature of man to club a woman over the head and drag her off as his mate, for example. Does that mean that man has an inalienable right to do that?
Nature and the nature of Man are not the same concepts. The answer to question is obviously no.
Says the "Dog"
When you choose to respond only to some minor point and avoid all the substance it tends to say you have no answer or at least not one you think will stand up to much scrutiny. When you combine this with your persistent ad hominem side bar comments it tends to reveal you are ought of any real and substantive replies.
No I don't think it means that at all. A person born into a lawless society of anarchy still has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness despite the fact that no other person in the society recognizes the duty not to tread upon that right.
I've already given the proof for this above. 1. All persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's the starting point. 2. Liberty is the personal individual freedom to decide whether to hunt, what animal to hunt, whether to retain the hide, whether to go to work, at what price will one work, at what job, etc. etc. etc. However, hunting, retaining skins or cash, working, where to work etc. are just means to an end. A person doesn't hunt for hunting's sake, but to acquire food and animal hides, a person doesn't work for workings sake but to acquire cash or other bargained for property. The liberty of personal individual freedom of action and choices can not be realized, actualized, or brought into existence if one does not have the right to the fruits of one's choices (including the choices about one's labor, industry, and effort). In this way it is clearly shown that the right to property (the fruits of one's free choices, in the exercise of their personal effort, industry, and skill) is inherent in the concept of liberty. Liberty is meaningless and hollow if it does not inherently include the right to possess, retain, and enjoy the results of the free choices made in the actualization/realization of that liberty. Liberty is personal individual freedom, and one can not be free if the exercise of one's liberty is reduced to a mere concept that can not be actualized and realized in the real world of physical things (i.e. property). If liberty did not inherently include the right to private property ownership then there is no way for a person to freely choose what to do and what not to do with their time, effort, industry, and talents because all choices would lead to the same result. If all choices lead to the same result, then in essence you have no choices at all. If you have no choices at all then you are not free to make any choices. If you are not free to make any choices then you have no liberty.
No this is not a correct understanding. Inalienable rights the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are reinforced and enabled through man made laws, but they do not derive from the man made laws. Put another way, government's purpose through the laws it enacts pursuant to the consent of the governed is to facilitate the actualization of these inalienable rights. That is not the same thing as creating the right. This is unlike alienable rights that are purely the creature of society's man made laws that define additional alienable rights through proscriptions and the imposition of duties on society as a whole. For example one has the right to liberty whether society adopts any enabling laws or not. However, one does not have a right to a free public education without the adoption of laws defining and proscribing that right/duty.
Says the "Dog"
WOW! that's some ego you got there. can it be that i don't think your argument has much substance? (its not entirely true but the comment is still justified because you can't comprehend the fact that not everything you say is gold.) The part of your post that I chose was what interested me most. I care little about the ideological rant of some random person. I chose the part of your post that I wanted to debate...plain and simple.
Both inalienable rights and duties are sometimes violated. That's why we have this legal thing called murder. duties are imposed in by the law, they go along with the right and are codified by the law. i.e. the law is an expression of both the inalienable right and its associated duty.
I've already given the proof for this above. 1. All persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's the starting point.
- you are assuming that this mystic "creator" gives us our rights. i don't buy that argument as it presupposes too much.
2. Liberty is the personal individual freedom...blah blah blah...In this way it is clearly shown that the right to property (the fruits of one's free choices, in the exercise of their personal effort, industry, and skill) is inherent in the concept of liberty.
- while I agree with you, this is not necessarily true. Are people too poor to afford housing any less free than people who own apartment complexes? If they are then why doesn't the government give them land pursuant to the constitutional quote you keep repeating? Also, you can be equally free living on state owned land. Native Americans were/are free and they have communal ownership of land. Your argument also doesn't account for government takings of land.
'Liberty is meaningless and hollow if it does not inherently include the right to possess, retain, and enjoy the results of the free choices made in the actualization/realization of that liberty. "
- is it any less hollow if you can do everything you can now except own land?
"Liberty is personal individual freedom, and one can not be free if the exercise of one's liberty is reduced to a mere concept that can not be actualized and realized in the real world of physical things (i.e. property)."
- quite a few people would disagree with such a materialistic view of existence.
"If liberty did not inherently include the right to private property ownership then there is no way for a person to freely choose what to do and what not to do with their time, effort, industry, and talents because all choices would lead to the same result. "
- this is quite a stretch. have you ever been in a library? rented a movie?
If all choices lead to the same result, then in essence you have no choices at all. If you have no choices at all then you are not free to make any choices. If you are not free to make any choices then you have no liberty.
- blah blah blah. you have taken the right idea and ran with it to the most extreme edge and taken a nose dive off the cliff. these last sentences are so severe/fundamentalist/ideological/rigid (i can't think of the proper word right now, but you get what i'm trying to say?) that they aren't true anymore.
Again, you need to prove where your inalienable rights are coming from. You are using the language of the constitution which is not universally recognized or believed in. Different societies have different ideas of what is inalienable. For example, the UN human rights group has a much more expansive list of inalienable rights, while many in europe would definitely include free healthcare as an inalienable right. slave holders did not think the right to life and liberty were inalienable for all people.
anyway, if you don't get a response from me for a while (if at all), don't think that i agree with you or am too stupid to continue the debate or whatever. all it means is that i've gone too bed. if you don't get any response at all that just means that either forgot about you or was too busy too reply. NOTHING MORE. The world does not revolve around you or your arguments.
Says the "Dog-Catcher"
(I couldn't resist the one last joke)
Trying to have an intelligent debate with Brian and Viscus is like trying to argue with a squishy ball. I'm so glad their school's taught them all about slavery and how evil slave holders were including our Founding Fathers. Too bad they didn't teach them about the remarkable, revolutionary concepts contained in the Declaration of Independence to which Brian's response is "Blah, blah, blah". Perhaps they would be more coomfortable living in Cuba?
J.F.Thomas, I too have always uderstood the "law of the commons" to serve as an example of "why government regulation is necessary for 'commons' that are not easily subject to private ownership (e.g., water, air), not as an argument to allot everything into private hands."). I am surprised and puzzled that Professor Somin (and the "law and economics" crowd?) sees it as an argument against limits on the "rights" of private property owners. (It would be practical and desirable to have no limits on how many animals individuals can graze on the village commons?! That's the "law and economics" view?)
And now, we present to you: The New Soviet Man.
This isn't even about sharing. This is about totalitarian planning imposed from above.
Nick
He signed his last post as dog-catcher which places him just about where I would have imagined for him in the grand scheme of life.
Viscus, didn't bother me. He didn't make the childish and sophomoric ad hominem/side bar comments that Brian K can't help but mistake for intelligent discourse. Viscus just commented he didn't have time for a philosophical discussion. That's certainly understandable as such discussions can be never ending, unless your having it with Brian K of course whose strategy to avoid confronting ideas he apparently doesn't understand is to basically just run away blah blah blah. ;-))
Says the "Dog"
I notice that you didn't respond to my posts. I realize that in many places you can't because your statements were outright lies that I called you on. For example your theory that libertarians want to create an economic system that increases the number of people in "desperate situations" so they can take advantage of them. That is false, of course, because libertarians want to create an economic system where there are very few people in "desperate situations" - as few as possible. So your statement was moronic and an outright lie.
You are pretty annoying and my first impulse was to ignore you, but I've decided to continue to point out your ignorance and incompetence.
I do find it amusing that you apparently think the idea of selfish at one's core versus mere selfish tendencies that occur as isolated incidents is a difficult distinction.
Of course your opinion of "selfishness" is only your opinion. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them selfish. Or childish. Or sociopathic. Or whatever other childish and insulting things you decide to say about people that disagree with the "World According to Viscus".
The point about Pavlov's dog is that he does not exercise restraint. All he does is follow his inclinations.
No, the point of Pavlov's dog was that he was following the conditioning, NOT his inclination. The dog's natural indication when faced with a ringing bell is to look curiously at the ringer. If you're going to use analogies at least try to get them right.
What is always on the mind of a selfish person is what they want, not what is right.
Let me guess: Viscus the Great decides what is "right" and anyone that disagrees with him is childish, selfish, sociopathic, etc. That's brilliant. You're not an arrogant megalomaniac or anything. Not at all.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine how naturally selfish adults would teach their children to behave non-selfishlessly, or even why they would be motivated to do so. Unless, it had something to do with taking advantage of their children.
Ahhh. We've determined that anyone that disagrees with Viscus is "selfish". Now by extension anyone that is "selfish" is out to exploit their own children. (And by extension unfit to raise them.)
Don't try to reduce us all to the moral degeneracy that is you, the libertarian. That is only mere projection.
It does appear to be projection, but not on the part of libertarians.
I am not selfish. I act according to principle. I assist others with no expectation of reward or thanks, and not because it makes me feel good.
If you are actually doing this with your own time and money and not taking the money from others or violating anyone's rights or hurting anyone in the process - good for you. No one said anything about this.
As long as behaving in a principled manner can be taught, it must be taught. It is a necessity to rise above Pavlov's dog, a creature that is nothing more than inclination.
As long as you are teaching this without stealing money from other people or hurting them or violating their rights - more power to you.
Libertarians and other sociopaths are not necessarily hopeless. However, they do need to learn to be even more disciplined than others, since they are much more selfish than others.
All libertarians are not sociopaths and that is an ignorant, moronic, ridiculous statement. They are not more selfish than others and you are ignorant and unfit to decide what they - or anyone else, needs to "learn".
The more one's natural inclinations vary from doing what is right, the more one needs to use their higher faculties of self-restraint, reason, and discipline.
And let me guess, whatever agrees with your opinions is what is "right"?
I like how you accuse me of ad hominem attacks even though your posts are littered with them. how very one sided of you. the only reason why I made the comments is that i have little respect for you and find your online persona hilarious. the "dog" is little more than a rip from that retarded bounty hunter show.
you apparently can't fathom that anyone would ever disagree with you. i clearly spelled out my objections to your arguments and you chose to insult me rather than countering them. (note, i insulted you AND countered your argument...they're not necessarily exclusive). If you don't find my style of humor funny that's fine with me.
and yet, i'm still above you. a dog-catcher is after all above dogs in the grand scheme of things.
brian
May I suggest a Funk and Wagnels. A junkyardlawdog is no kind of dog at all. Its a concept or a handle but not a noun that describes any particular being or occupation (although it might imply an occupation in the law or a particularly aggressive and dangerous kind of lawyer, so to speak).
On the other hand "dog-catcher" is a noun and an occupation. So not only are you just about where I would have imagined by adopting that name and title, but you reveal you are not a particularly verbal dog-catcher with limited abilities in reading comprehension and conceptualization. Not to mention your very faulty memory in attempting to claim I made any attack or side bar comment to you (before this post anyway).
Nice try,
Says the "Dog"
I see that you are a little confused as to what a handle is. It is a nickname that people use online. It is their online name! It does not matter what it is in the real world ("bob", "bigdick69", "hotmamma21", "blue" are all perfectly valid handles). When used in the adjective form, junkyardlawdog might mean anything, but you are using it as your name online. It may be a descriptive name, but it is a name nonetheless. As such it is a noun, which is defined as a person, place or thing. even if my handle was some random string of characters, eg. gp78./2e, that is utter nonsense in any other circumstance, it is my name and would be used like any other noun.
I forgive your memory lapses. This is not the first comment you have directed at me. We have crossed paths on other boards. I have ignored you in the past and wish I did this time. i usually ignore people who make ideological arguments as it is little more than a waste of time.
my comments still stand and were correctly formatted. i don't expect you to like my jokes as they were made at your expense and your response to them was not surprising in the least. when confronted with an actual counter argument, you opted to insult me and call it "stupid" which is the exact response i expect from a ideologue.
brian
PS. you might want to check your "Funk and Wagnels" and you'd probably be surprised to discover it's spelled wagnalls. hahaha...nice try!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_and_Wagnalls
Sort of like someone repeatedly claiming that libertarians are selfish, childish, and/or sociopaths.
I wonder if Viscus realizes that more money would be available to private charities under a more libertarian economic system. That's voluntary charitable contributions - people who stold from others for "charity" would still be put in prison, just like in our system.
You are now retracting that statement and saying that nature and the nature of man are different when you stated they were one and the same in paragraph above?
I'm SO disappointed in your flip-flopping.