Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <1922@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 01:31:58 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1922 Posted: Sun Jan 27 01:31:58 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 21:18:30 EST Lines: 123 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-43400:inmet:7800283:177600:6320 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 26 03:56:00 1985 Xref: seismo net.politics:7481 >***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 11:45 am Jan 23, 1985 >> From R.J. Stewart: To a libertarian, however, the relativistic >> axiom suggests a principle, that goes something like: >> >> Since my philosophy has no special significance, I should not do >> things to promote it that I would not want other people to do in >> promoting *their* philosophy. >> >This sounds like a paraphrase of: >1)the Golden Rule >2)John Rawles basic principle for his Social Contract theory of justice: > namely, that the best society would be that which I would agree to, > if I do not know what my position would be in that society. > >This principle acknowledges the true problem of government-how to resolve >individuals conflicting desires and aims. If one accepts this as the >fundamental problem of government (which I do) then one comes to the conclusion >that Rawles and other Social Contract philosophers like John Locke came to: >that society and government is based upon a social contract between all its >members. Thus a just society will not exclude or deny people certain >rights or privileges just because those people happen to have inherited >no claim to a large portion of society's goods, while other people have >inherited a majority of claims to society's goods. This is a little vague, but it sure sounds like you're saying: "Just because Joe inherited millions, doesn't mean he gets to KEEP them -- I have a right to some of that money just by being human". If that's what you're saying, you are incorrect, and should say it more directly so you can be more directly refuted. If you're merely saying that certain rights, such as the ownership of one's self and the fruits of one's labor, and the right to give owned property to another person, then I certainly agree with you. >On the other hand, freedom itself is a good which I will undoubtedly find >desirable regardless of my possessions. Most people would not desire >an equal claim to clothing that is all the same , or all of >inferior quality. Most people would also accept that axiom that justice >means that those who work harder should be paid more. >They may accept >that "efficiency" may be increased if people are paid solely their >worth on the market, but that is another problem than justice. >Yet this is what Libertarians claim is the "only" measure of worth- >worth on the market. Not that I suspect you of straw-manning us again, but do you mind telling us the author of this "claim"? I mean, it's not as if libertarians ordinarily kick people or walk right through them, even if they own no property. Also, could you distinguish please between the notion of "worth on the market" and "what someone's worth", in such a way that it makes sense in the context of the quote I've asked for? Remember, libertarians may well think of a "social market", just because the metaphor makes sense, not that he expects literal buying and selling. >Libertarianism also has the tendency to put the rights of property above >any other rights. Hmmmm.... Given that human rights devolve from the ownership of your own body, it's not surprising that the distinction could be blurred by someone sufficiently obtuse. David Friedman pointed out that property has no rights -- HUMANS have rights to property, thus, what you're calling "property rights" is simply a branch (and possibly the basis of human rights). >We have already seen this in Libertarians defense of >killing to protect property. Why yes, in extremis. Please reference the specific article you're talking about though (I use notes, so an article i.d. wouldn't help, so if you could post the author, the date, and a brief quotation....). It's not as if libertarians ever support the initiation of force to pre-empt an intrusion, though, and it's not as if you can find a libertarian willing to kill because somebody picks up his briefcase by mistake. >Yet they fail to ask the question: what could >be "worth more" to me than my own life? What could be "worth more" to me than my own life? Well, the lives of the people I love, certain sorts of liberty (remember Nathan Hale) for all, and, I sometimes think that it would be worth my life to see you go through a whole article without misrepresenting anyone. >Do I have the right to take away >someone's ultimate "property" and the very ground of their freedom by taking >somebody's life? Property rights usually involve rights to water and the >prohibition of someone else's property from denying access to water. >Is it acceptable then to deny people the right to food, which they need >to live? This does NOT FOLLOW! That I can deny someone the right to eat MY cucumber sandwich doesn't mean that I have some way of forbidding them ALL cucumber sandwiches. Even if I've got a lock on cucumber sandwiches, perhaps they can eat fish instead. Get the picture? Denial of a particular bit of property to a person does NOT imply denial of ALL property to a person. In practice, only Governments ever come close to being able to deny all property to a person. >Should they be denied the right to an education, which they need >to be full members of society? Oops! There's just one little problem. The "right to an education" implies the "requirement to educate". The most direct way of doing this would be to partly enslave (draft) a bunch of teachers and.... No? Okay, partly enslave a bunch of property-owners and...., ah! I see that you believe it's okay to partly enslave (tax) one bunch but not the other. By the way, how much education do they need? A college degree? Reading and writing? Who decides? How much? No Saints, please. >I am not arguing that human rights simply devolve into property rights. >Rather human rights come before property rights--without the protection of >the person then there is nobody to be free, nor does it make sense to >talk about anybody's "property", for the concept of property itself >requires the prior concept of an owner of such property. Without an >owner there can be no property. >Human rights are above property rights. Tim, you seem willing to steal from some to give "rights" to others. On what basis do you decide? How do you test to see that it hasn't gone too far? How do you determine that you're stealing enough?