Is Obama Chafing the Rich? It Depends on the Argument Krugman Is Making That Day
For some time now, Krugman has been writing articles and blog posts explaining that the rich in this country are paranoid, that Obama is not some neo-Marxist trying to get them, etc. This isn’t the very best example of the genre, but it will serve the purpose: In September 2013 Krugman had a piece called, “Plutocrats Feeling Persecuted” in which he wrote (I’m relying on Mark Thoma’s summary):
Robert Benmosche, the chief executive of the American International Group, said something stupid the other day. And we should be glad, because his comments help highlight an important but rarely discussed cost of extreme income inequality — namely, the rise of a small but powerful group of what can only be called sociopaths.
For those who don’t recall, A.I.G. is a giant insurance company that played a crucial role in creating the global economic crisis… Five years ago, U.S. authorities, fearing that A.I.G.’s collapse might destabilize the whole financial system, stepped in with a huge bailout. … For a time, A.I.G. was essentially a ward of the federal government, which owned the bulk of its stock, yet it continued paying large executive bonuses. There was, understandably, much public furor.
So here’s what Mr. Benmosche did in an interview with The Wall Street Journal: He compared the uproar over bonuses to lynchings in the Deep South … and declared that the bonus backlash was “just as bad and just as wrong.” …In 2010…, there was a comparable outburst from Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman of the Blackstone Group, one of the world’s largest private-equity firms…
This is important. Sometimes the wealthy talk as if they were characters in “Atlas Shrugged,” demanding nothing more from society than that the moochers leave them alone. But these men were speaking for, not against, redistribution — redistribution from the 99 percent to people like them. This isn’t libertarianism; it’s a demand for special treatment. It’s not Ayn Rand; it’s ancien régime. …
The thing is, by and large, the wealthy have gotten their wish. Wall Street was bailed out, while workers and homeowners weren’t. …
So why the anger? Why the whining? And bear in mind that claims that the wealthy are being persecuted aren’t just coming from a few loudmouths. They’ve been all over the op-ed pages and were, in fact, a central theme of the Romney campaign last year.
Well, I have a theory. When you have that much money, what is it you’re trying to buy by making even more? You already have the multiple big houses, the servants, the private jet. What you really want now is adulation; you want the world to bow before your success. And so the thought that people in the media, in Congress, and even in the White House are saying critical things about people like you drives you wild.
Beyond the specific example above, Krugman has a running theme of “Ma He’s Looking at Me Funny!” (here’s one) in which he mocks the rich businesspeople who claim there is some sort of concerted effort to hurt them under the Obama Administration. (The point of the insult is that these rich whiners are just like kids complaining about being mocked, as opposed to actually being injured.)
Uh oh, but today Krugman realizes that this puts him in a bit of a bind. If it were literally true that Obama isn’t chafing the super rich, then there would be no reason to vote for Democrats. Thus he clarifies:
it’s quite wrong to say that the parties’ behavior in office is the same. As Floyd Norris points out, Obama has in fact significantly raised taxes on very high incomes, largely through special surcharges included in the Affordable Care Act; and what the Act does with the extra revenue is expand Medicaid and provide subsidies on the exchanges, both means-tested programs whose beneficiaries tend to be mainly lower-income adults. The net effect will be significant losses for the super-elite — not crippling losses, to be sure, and hardly anything that will affect their elite status — and major gains to tens of millions of less fortunate Americans.
So if I understand this, the elites in this country are “sociopaths” and “paranoid” even though Krugman admits that they have suffered “significant losses” under Obama’s policies, compared to what would have happened if someone else were in office.
Hmmm. This looks like a fair cop. Obama is a cronyist. So there are winners and losers. Makes it possible for Krugman to do this kind of cherry picking.
But all redistributionists are at least inadvertently cronyist.
Obama is absolutely trying to further destroy the free market. Obamacare, in spite of its use of cronyism, is actually designed to implode so as to get people to blame the free market for a lack of health care and subsequently call for a Canada-like transition to the Single Payer system he talked about in secret to his Union buddies while deliberately ignoring the Constitution during the Health Care Summit.
It’s designed to be gradual. Don’t let the cronyism fool you.
I feel like you have a whole set of posts in mind that I might not be up to date on, but it seems like someone can not be “persecuted” and still suffer losses. Interned Japanese and jailed murderers both suffer the same losses, but we only talk about one being “persecuted”.
I suppose if you see any action by the state as equally (il)legitimate it’s easier to confuse the two. To an anarcho-capitalist “confiscatory taxation” is a redundant phrase. But your first selection pretty clearly was mocking them for acting like there has been some kind of illegitimate war on the rich where your second quote is not.
I’m not saying everything Obama does with respect to the rich is legitimate or anything, I just think you’ve got to keep that distinction in mind.
Daniel I admit I didn’t find the “smoking gun” on this one. Krugman has definitely said in the past words to the effect of “OMG the rich are complaining that Obama is hurting them but we’re just back to Clinton tax rates” or something.
Right. And all I’m saying is that it seems consistent to me to say both (1.) Bush tax rates are better for the rich than Clinton tax rates and (2.) the rich should quit their whining.
Oh sorry, it was a mass typo. We all meant to say prosecuting. Because it’s a crime to be a success.
re: “Because it’s a crime to be a success.”
Sort of a catch 22 for the prosecuting attorney huh?
In all seriousness – in case this isn’t clear – I am using the word that Krugman used to make a point what he was trying to say, not trying to put the word in anyone else’s mouth. I mean come on – the guy he’s citing compared it to lynchings.
I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in noting that there is a big difference between “are you being lynched more or less” and “is your net worth taking a hit or not”, and Krugman can definitely say “yes” to the latter and “no” to the former without being inconsistent.
Well, if Krugman’s point is that the rich are exaggerating their losses, that’s one thing. But when he says things like “the wealthy have gotten their wish,” that’s entirely different.
Krugman could simply come out and say, “Yes, the wealthy have indeed suffered under this regime, but come on guys, comparisons to lynching are simply beyond the pale.”
But instead he’s saying “Get a load of these rich guys, they have the nerve to complain even though Obama isn’t hurting them at all!”
I think Bob is right on the money with this one. It’s a common tactic of the radical left – complain that mainstream Democrats are pawns of the wealthy and giving them everything they want, while simultaneously insisting that only Democrats can stop the wealthy from enslaving us all, which Republicans would surely allow them to do. The main goal is to move the Democrat party farther left, while covering your tracks enough to not let the GOP gain any traction or capitalize on potential infighting.
I was taking issue with your analogy, which seemed to suggest a kind of equivalence between being rich and being a murderer. It was actually worse than what Krugman said.
But, like, it’s not supposed to be consistent logic, is it? Taking “a little bit” from the rich is “fair,” and if they complain, they’re whiners. If the rich have ever benefited from a government policy, then it was a systemic effort to divert money into their hands, and for them to complain about it now is just being a ninny. They’re hypocrites, therefore they can’t be libertarians, but libertarians are evil anyway. But the rich are evil. But they’re not libertarians.
…and so forth.
I call these “shotgun theories.” They make a certain kind of superficial sense if you already buy into the whole modern progressivism package-deal. No one in Krugman’s core demo will bother to draw hard, consistent, reliable connections, and anyone who criticizes Krugman’s point is a fool or a knave.
I can only speak for myself but I’m in Krugman’s demo, I think Bob’s off base on this (I often think that when it comes to Krugman of course, but not always), but I don’t think he or many other Krugman critics are fools or knaves.
Perhaps your comment here is a bit of a shotgun theory itself?
Unfortunately, you haven’t understood my comment at all. The blame is on me for not having been clear.
I think I have so what is it you are under the impression I’m misunderstanding?
I am not really commenting on your thoughts on Krugman, you realize. I am reflecting on the potential ironies in your last paragraph. Your view of Krugman’s “core demo” only seems superficially true when expressed vaguely (I checked back on your blog post on “Shotgun Theories” to ensure that I was getting the claim right).
What does the phrase “core demo” mean to you? How I use that term is to indicate a core demographic, i.e. the audience at whom Krugman’s articles are intended to be marketed. A core demo cannot “seem superficially true” or false or anything else. Demos can’t be true or false. They are just groups of people.
So I am pretty sure you have misunderstood what I am saying. Based on what you’ve written, it seems that you feel I have said you are wrong. But I don’t consider you a member of Krugman’s target demo, so I wasn’t really even talking about you or your views.
As for what exactly I was calling a shotgun theory, it was Krugman’s views as expressed Bob’s citations.
I stand by my opinion. You are free to disagree, but hopefully I have clarified some of the confusion here. I won’t be responding further.
Ah, I misread your last post, Kuehn. Sorry.
Anyway, you’re not getting any more specific than I am and I don’t feel like arguing today. If you want me to concede defeat or something, then let this comment represent that concession and we can leave it at that.
How many super elites and uber wealthy are there in the country? At what point can you say they are paranoid? Anyway… I look at thing that Mr. Krugman says and simply shake my head. How can one man say so much without really saying anything?
Look Redistribution of money is NOT redistribution of wealth. It is the redistribution of the effects of wealth. So it is a logical fallacy to engage in it as the end result is NOT a better society, does not create equal outcomes, and may well be damaging to those that receive it.
The Administration is not seeking to do that. They have adopted the Keynesian attitude of throw money at the problem rather than foster real growth and create industry. I would have been all for the ‘Keynesian’ action had they not sought to under lie it with real change and betterment.
Oh well I feel like I am rambling… Sorry all. I am tired of seeing Krugman and most people look at money as though it is the means to production and talking about using it as a means of redistribution.
Bob Murphy,
The first Krugman quote in your post is about AIG executives who bankrupted the company, got bailed out by the government, then paid themselves huge bonuses, then whined like spoilt brats that they were being persecuted when people got angry about it.
The second quote is about wealthy people paying more taxes.
Not the same.
Just for the record, Krugman was in favour of the bailouts, and it was those nasty Tea Party weirdos who were opposed.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/bailout-questions-answered/
also (clicking through from above)…
Look at that, Krugman specifically mentioned the AIG bailout approach was the good solution. Now AIG we are told, “There was, understandably, much public furor.”
Uhhh, yeah there was public furor, there were Tea Party marches and there were people occupying Wall Street (or attempting to), Krugman failed to notice all that? Funny sort of visibility you get sitting in an office at the New York Times.
“Look at that, Krugman specifically mentioned the AIG bailout approach was the good solution. Now AIG we are told, “There was, understandably, much public furor.”
People were pissed off about the bailouts, but in the quote posted by Bob above, Krugman is talking about AIG executives who were paid large bonuses despite the bankruptcy of the company and government bailout, as if it was just business-as-usual/ let-the-good-times-roll/ we deserve it. And then when people got mad at the unfairness of it all, they turned around and claimed they were being persecuted.
Maybe I read Krugman unfairly because he makes me angry, or maybe it has just gone way past the time to give him the slightest benefit of the doubt.
When Krugman pulled out AIG as a specific case where he personally advocated the bailout as both absolutely necessary, and also personally approved of the way that bailout was handled, he might as well have given those tax-funded bonuses over with his own hands. Then to turn around and wring said hands, calling those same AIG execs “sociopaths” and start beating the envy politics drum right before a midterm election… that man is too much.
I can’t deal with him. He is a comedian amongst Very Serious People. Not even a funny comedian, because he always tells the same old jokes again and again.
“Krugman pulled out AIG as a specific case where he personally advocated the bailout”
True, but I think he saw it as necessary because otherwise the whole financial system was potentially going down, along with most people’s savings, pensions, incomes, jobs, hopes and dreams, etc.
The obvious problem is the “too big to fail” situation, where certain companies are so central to the whole structure of financial obligations that if they collapse, most of the obligations will end up defaulting and the whole structure will implode.
Well, “the wealthy” are not and have never been one amorphous group. The whole point about capitalism and having a respectable legal system is that the many people who do create wealth are not forced to pay for the few who gambled and lost, then got a bailout. For that matter, homeowners are not one amorphous group either, some borrowed within their means, some borrowed far beyond their means, treating them as a single group just means ignoring the restraint and prudence of those who did the right thing.
Bob Roddis repeatedly argues that Rothbardianism is simply “the rigorous enforcement of the non-aggression principle”.
He just assumes that the Rothbardian theory of property rights is absolutely correct.
In fact Rothbardianism is not simply “the rigorous enforcement of the non-aggression principle”.
Rothbardianism is “the rigorous enforcement of Rothbardian property rights theory”.
Do you see how those two things are different?
I agree, to some extent.
Rothbardianism does have a rigorous enforcement of the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is simply that nobody may initiate violence against another person or their property. So, an ancom may also rigorously enforce the NAP, if their theory of property rights is just that we own ourselves and a few possessions.
Some people without clear property theories do not support the NAP. Often pro-state people will, for example, say that the state has ownership over the entire United States in order to justify taxation. But they pull back from this if the state goes too far. So, they do not support rigorous enforcement of the NAP in this case. Others will say the state does not have property rights in, for example, my house, but will support government restrictions on my house (I can’t start a business, for example, without various permissions). So, they do not support rigorous enforcement of the NAP in this case.
So, I think it is important to note that the Rothbardian position does consistently apply the NAP, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Property rights theory obviously backs it up. But, since most people think they own themselves and their house and other possessions, I think it is often sufficient in conversations to say that the Rothbardian position is the NAP.
“most people think they own themselves and their house and other possessions”
Most people also think:
1. that things can be owned in common, such as public land.
2. that law should be created and enforced by democratic government.
3. that people are part of a society and have an obligation to contribute to that society if they can.
4. that people have rights other than private property rights.
5. that some rights trump private property rights.
6. that taxation is necessary to provide public goods and services.
7. that freedom and liberty are not simply defined by private property rights.
Rothbardians do not accept any of those views.
I think you misunderstood my point. If most people think they own themselves and some other possessions, that does not immediately imply that Rothbard was correct. But, it does allow a basic framework to begin arguing other things – in this case, the non-aggression principle. As you said, in order to begin arguing the NAP from a Rothbardian standpoint, other people must have a “Rothbardian theory of property rights” (or something similar to it to get similar, but not necessarily the same, results).
When I argue with people on deriving property rights, I usually assume equal rights for humans. If I held the view that I was so much more awesome than everyone else that I deserved to be king, there might be no way to move me from this belief. If I think all humans are equal, but support slavery, then people can point to a clear contradiction in my thinking. I can’t really hold both views at once. So, people also thinking other things isn’t really too relevant. If they contradict, then that is what I would try to point out. Otherwise, those views are not in the range of the discussion.
Since I agree with #1, 3, 4, and 7, I don’t think they contradict the Rothbardian framework.
“If they contradict, then that is what I would try to point out. Otherwise, those views are not in the range of the discussion.”
Ok, but the the discussion about what constitutes aggression, or unjustified use of force, is not necessarily limited to a discussion about property rights.
Rothbardians argue that it must be about property rights, because that is their theory. But others would argue that other things have to be taken into consideration. Or they might even go so far as to reject the whole property right concept altogether.
A Rothbardian would argue that any violation of private property rights, as defined by Rothbardian theory, constitutes an unjustified act of aggression. But someone who believes in the supremacy of other rights might argue that the purposeful denial of those rights in itself constitutes an act of aggression.
As a simple example: in the homesteading story, the homesteader unilaterally claims the right to use force against people who venture on to his self-proclaimed land. But someone who thinks they have a right to roam around freely on the God-given earth would see that use of force as an act of aggression against them. And this person might not see the earth as their property, but rather as something which can’t be owned.
What exactly is your point, Philippe? Lots of people believe lots of different things. Telling a Rothbardian that other people don’t agree with their views on property rights, or what constitutes an act of unjustified aggression, is like telling us the sky is blue.
“What exactly is your point, Philippe?”
My point is simply that Rothbardianism, or libertarianism, is not just “the enforcement of the NAP”. It is the enforcement of a particular ideology of property.
OK, every Rothbardian I am aware of would agree with that. That’s why we spend so much time discussing our view of property rights, because you can’t have a meaningful discussion on what constitutes aggression without it.
I think you are getting confused because people use statements like “Rothbardianism is just the enforcement of the NAP” as a kind of shorthand.
The problem is that some people use statements like “Rothbardianism is just the enforcement of the NAP” not as a shorthand, but as a statement of fact.
But Rothbardianism is not really “the enforcement of the NAP”, because the NAP in itself doesn’t mean much on its own without a theory of what constitutes aggression, i.e. a theory of property rights in the case of Rothbardianism.
So it is incorrect to say that Rothbardianism is “the enforcement of the NAP”.
What Rothbardianism actually is, is “the enforcement of the Rothbardian theory of property”.
Note the word: ‘enforcement’.
To summarise, Rothbardianism is: the use of force to assert the Rothbardian ideology.
“But Rothbardianism is not really “the enforcement of the NAP”, because the NAP in itself doesn’t mean much on its own without a theory of what constitutes aggression, i.e. a theory of property rights in the case of Rothbardianism.”
Well, you must know some Rothbardians I don’t because that is like telling me the sky is blue.
Dan,
you may have noticed that this comment thread was initially about arguments made by Bob Roddis.
“Ok, but the the discussion about what constitutes aggression, or unjustified use of force, is not necessarily limited to a discussion about property rights.”
That was sort of my point. After property rights are agreed upon, that’s one you can argue the NAP. Rothbardianism is not just the property rights portion, it’s also the NAP (that the property rights are higher than other rights).
The NAP is a property right based argument, so if there is a higher right I would argue that the NAP is wrong rather than that violating this higher right was an aggression. Otherwise, the NAP would just be right by definition, and would lose any real meaning, I think.
“But someone who thinks they have a right to roam around freely on the God-given earth would see that use of force as an act of aggression against them. And this person might not see the earth as their property, but rather as something which can’t be owned.” Hmm, I don’t think that’s a good example, because the person doesn’t recognize the land as the homesteader’s property (so it’s a property disagreement, not a disagreement on higher/lower ordered rights). I think a better example would be that someone thinks they have a God-given right to roam freely, and that this is a higher right. The homesteader would have the right to do anything on his property as long as he didn’t infringe on this right. So, the roaming person couldn’t build a house on the property (because they don’t own it) but they could walk through it. The homesteader on the other hand could build a house on the property (because they own it), but couldn’t build a fence blocking people from walking by (because that would be violating a higher right). Is that sort of what you are saying here? If so, I agree. There could potentially be higher rights than property rights. The NAP I think is an argument otherwise (but doesn’t exclude lower ordered rights).
“After property rights are agreed upon, that’s one you can argue the NAP”
If property rights were simply agreed on, then there would be no need for enforcement.
“the person doesn’t recognize the land as the homesteader’s property (so it’s a property disagreement, not a disagreement on higher/lower ordered rights).”
It’s not a property disagreement in the sense of two people disagreeing over who owns the land. It is a disagreement over the very concept of land ownership, between one person who asserts that he owns the land, and another person who doesn’t even recognise the concept that someone can own the land.
One person asserts “I own of the land”, whilst the other says “I don’t even know what that means, all I know is that you are using violence against me”.
1) I wasn’t talking about between me and people infringing on my rights. I’m saying between ordinary citizens. For example, if I argue that taxation is theft with someone else, and they agree my money is my property, they may still think that I should pay taxes. I would use the NAP to argue otherwise.
2) Even when property rights are agreed upon, there still may need to be enforcement. A thief often concedes he is violating the rights of others. And, even when a theory of property rights is widely understood, it could be unclear in some cases on who legitimately followed the process.
“It is a disagreement over the very concept of land ownership, between one person who asserts that he owns the land, and another person who doesn’t even recognise the concept that someone can own the land.”
That’s still a property disagreement. One person thinks nobody owns it, the other thinks he owns it. But I see where you’re coming from, which is why I attempted to make what I thought was a better example. I think I actually agree on your main point.
“That’s still a property disagreement”
The example was meant to illustrate a conflict between two radically different ways of seeing the world, one based on “ownership”, and the other not.
I only use that extreme example to make a point, by the way. Here’s an even more extreme example:
Say you landed on an alien planet, and started walking around. Then a tentacled creature comes up to you and shouts “Quagoool!”
You look at him completely dumbfounded, and he repeats “Quagoool!”
Still perplexed, you do nothing.
The creature shouts “Quagoool!” again, and then shoots you with its lazer.
You have no idea what just happened, or why.
The alien thinks to himself “Quagoool”, and walks off.
Okay, I see.
Earlier you said:
“But someone who believes in the supremacy of other rights might argue that the purposeful denial of those rights in itself constitutes an act of aggression.
As a simple example…”
I thought the simple example was referring to higher rights, at first.
I don’t think we have any disagreement on this anymore.
I love the example by the way 🙂
“the Rothbardian position is the NAP”
This rests on the assumption that the creation of private property does not involve any act of aggression in the first place.
The ‘homesteading’ story which is used to justify Rothbardian property rights goes something like this:
Once upon a time there was a big empty land. Then an individual somehow materialised on that land. He chose a spot and did something, like cut down a tree. Then he made a fence with the chopped-down tree and put it around the piece of land he had chosen. Now the land belongs to him absolutely and for ever, because he has mixed his labour with the land. He now has a right to use force against anyone who comes onto that piece of land without his permission.
First of all, this story is not a historically accurate description of how private property came into being. It has nothing to do with how private property came into existence in reality.
Secondly, this story assumes that the individual has a right to unilaterally declare a piece of land to be his property without anyone else’s consent, and then use force against people who disagree.
My full statement was, “But, since most people think they own themselves and their house and other possessions, I think it is often sufficient in conversations to say that the Rothbardian position is the NAP.”
Of course if they don’t agree, for example because of the reasons you listed off, then arguing the NAP would not be sufficient. It rests upon an agreement on certain ownership.
Do you agree I own myself? By that I mean, do you agree that I should be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights*?
*Other rights left undefined for now
“Do you agree I own myself?”
To be honest I’m not sure what that means exactly. Yes you are a body, with a brain, and a mind, and possibly a ‘soul’.
Does that mean you “own” yourself? I don’t really know. What does it really mean to say that someone “owns” himself?
Your mind inhabits your body. Does that mean your mind “owns” your body? Your mind is basically your brain, which is part of your body, so does your body “own” your body? How does that work?
It sounds like what you’re really saying is “I am”. And, “because I am, I have a right to do whatever I want without hurting other people”. Ok, but is that really true? Are you simply an “I” all on your own, or are you part of something else?
We know that people are born inside the bodies of other people, so does that mean you are not just an “I”, but also a “we”?
I just meant, “should [I] be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights?”
As for what “you” are, I don’t know, that’s a scientific/philosophical debate/question. A Christian would probably say that you are a soul, some scientists would say you are certain parts of your brain.
This is really an ethical question, just for you. I don’t think there is any objective proof of ethics. I am just wondering if you think you should be able to control your body without unwanted outside interference, as long as you don’t violate some other right.
“We know that people are born inside the bodies of other people, so does that mean you are not just an “I”, but also a “we”?” A murderer says at his trial: “I didn’t kill HER, I killed US.” Jokes aside, I don’t think being a “we” would make any sense. If I transfer a kidney, we don’t become the same person at all. If I become a cyborg, I am still the same person, even though I lost my body.
“I just meant, “should [I] be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights?”
I suppose it depends on how you define “other people’s rights”.
Personally I think that people should generally be able to do what they want in most cases, though I believe that things called family, community, society and humanity actually exist, and that we are not just atomistic individuals.
I think we’re necessarily part of something larger, even if we don’t want to be.
We’re born inside other people’s bodies, within a family, a community, a society, a culture, a history.
Whether we want it or not, we are born into a web of relationships, obligations, history, social structures and culture. We essentially “owe” things to others the day we are born, and we can’t live our lives without acquiring more obligations.
We can try to change things in our lifetime, but we can never just wipe the slate clean and pretend that nothing before today ever happened, so everyone can just “fuck off and leave me alone”.
“I suppose it depends on how you define “other people’s rights”.”
Whatever other rights you happen to think people have. For example, if you think the government has the right to stop people from smoking, and that was the only other right (to simplify this), then you owning yourself would just mean, “You should be able to do anything you want with your body, except smoke if the government doesn’t want you to, without anyone using your body in a way you don’t want.”
I agree with the rest of your stuff, however, I put these in lower rights. People are obligated to take care of each other, but if they don’t people can’t use violence against them (that would be a higher right violation).
what does “owning yourself” mean again, exactly?
In my comment above I said it sounds like you are just asserting the fact that you exist.
“People are obligated to take care of each other, but if they don’t people can’t use violence against them”
Again it depends on how you define violence.
Say for example there was a famine for some reason, and millions of people were dying of hunger, and you happened to own vast stockpiles of food – the only stockpiles around- and one day people decided to make a compulsory purchase of your food and then distribute it to the starving people, would that be wrong?
I should be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights, without someone else using my body in some way I don’t want them to.
So, if the government has the right to say whether I can smoke (and say this is the only other right beyond self-ownership for simplicity), then if they say to stop smoking and I continue smoking, I would be violating their right. But, if they don’t have the right to tell me not to smoke, then if I start smoking, I would not be violating the rights of any other people, and they could not stop me.
“I should be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights, without someone else using my body in some way I don’t want them to.”
Alright, but it doesn’t follow that therefore legal obligations such as as taxation are wrong, or some sort of “violation of your body”.
Yes, it would be wrong – which I think you would actually agree with too. The act itself is wrong, which is why such an extreme example is needed. The reason it seems silly to say it is wrong is because the good coming from taking the food is enormously higher than the bad from not taking it.
In a Rothbardian society people would probably take the food, and afterward be forced to pay for the crime.
Imagine the alternative, that stealing the food is okay. Then couldn’t people take the food without ever paying the guy back? What if he spent 50 years, 15 hours a day collecting the food, and it’s all wiped out because other people didn’t prepare? You might be able to put arbitrary payments on taking the food (I don’t know how you could derive such a right), but then we get right back to something similar to the Rothbardian outlook. Some level of retribution is required.
Just had a look at wikipedia on the subject of the homesteading story of property rights.
I was wondering what you think of this:
“justification through mixing of labor rests upon the assumption that land, something uncreated (as in not created by any human being), can be rightly owned by way of a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of the labor.”
There seems to be a basic logical problem in the homesteading story. Do you know of any counter-arguments to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property
“Yes, it would be wrong – which I think you would actually agree with too.”
No, I wouldn’t agree in that case as my example is a life and death situation.
“Alright, but it doesn’t follow that therefore legal obligations such as as taxation are wrong, or some sort of “violation of your body”.”
Agreed, but I think we can get there from this point, or at least somewhere close to it. Some basic level of property rights are immediately apparent from self-ownership. My body is just made up of food I’ve eaten and water I drank in the past. Suppose I walk up to an apple tree. Nobody has ever been there before. I pick an apple, and put it in my mouth. It is now part of my body. I own it. Before, I did not own it. Hence, I gained ownership over an outside object. Would you agree?
Furthermore, can I take something out of my body and still own it? Suppose I accidentally cut off a finger. I put it in ice, and go to the hospital to try and reattach it. But, on my way there, someone grabs the finger, and eats it. Did he violate my rights, regardless of separate government rules (so, did I still own the finger)?
Also, regarding the homesteading story, how do Rothbardians respond to the ‘Lockean proviso’, i.e. that private homesteading of land is only OK “where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others”.
“justification through mixing of labor rests upon the assumption that land, something uncreated (as in not created by any human being), can be rightly owned by way of a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of the labor.”
Nothing is created out of nothing. If I make snowman, I am just collecting the snow and putting it together, or if I make a wooden hut, I am just collecting wood and putting it together. Land is similar. If I make a path, or plow it, or graze it, I am mixing my labor (or my other property) with it, so I would say gain ownership over it. So, I don’t see why land would be different.
“Hence, I gained ownership over an outside object. Would you agree?”
I would agree that you ate the apple. I don’t know whether that means you ‘own’ it.
“someone grabs the finger, and eats it. Did he violate my rights, regardless of separate government rules (so, did I still own the finger)?”
I don’t think you need to appeal to property rights to say that is wrong. He’s causing you harm and distress without any justifiable reason, which is reason enough to condemn it.
coming back to the self-ownership question, re the finger example.
I’d say the finger is a part of you, rather than “your property”.
There are different approaches. I find it rather arbitrary, because it could be argued that there isn’t enough of anything for everyone. So, I don’t know why if it applies for one thing it wouldn’t apply for everything else. In some cases, there is only one of something. Each individual is unique. If someone wants me (and only me) to do something, and I refuse, there clearly isn’t enough for them.
I think Locke made it more as an excuse to take care of other problems. He didn’t derive it from anything, as far as I recall.
“I’d say the finger is a part of you, rather than “your property”.” By your “alright” earlier, I thought you agreed I owned myself, under my definition. I’m using the same definition here. So, if I own my body, I surely own the individual parts, at least while it is on my body.
“So, I don’t know why if it applies for one thing it wouldn’t apply for everything else.”
probably because land is originally “given freely to all”. By enclosing it you are forcefully and unilaterally appropriating something which is not owned, without the consent of everyone else. You then preserve your ‘ownership’ of that appropriated land by threatening others with violence.
Locke probably thought it was acceptable to behave in this aggressive manner, so long as there was enough land for everybody else.
The question is what happens to the ‘homesteading’ story when that is no longer the case?
“I don’t think you need to appeal to property rights to say that is wrong. He’s causing you harm and distress without any justifiable reason, which is reason enough to condemn it.”
I agree. However, I’m saying even if you got rid of all other rights/morality except self-ownership (which I thought I got you to agree on under my definition), that it would be wrong. Essentially I’m saying the wrongness of it can be derived logically JUST from self-ownership.
“probably because land is originally “given freely to all”. By enclosing it you are forcefully and unilaterally appropriating something which is not owned, without the consent of everyone else. You then preserve your ‘ownership’ of that appropriated land by threatening others with violence.”
Again though, that’s the case with anything else. If I build a hut, the wood was freely available to everyone else before I took it. I may enclose it, and use violence to stop other people from using my hut (under homesteading theory). So, if this is a problem, it’s a much bigger problem than they say. It would end all ownership via homesteading.
“So, if I own my body, I surely own the individual parts, at least while it is on my body.”
You could say that, but I don’t think its necessary to talk about it in terms of property. You could just refer to your body as a part of yourself, rather than your property. Yes you can refer to a cut-off finger as your property, but you could also refer to it as a part of you, a part of your body, without having to talk about “owning yourself”.
You just are, you are a thing which exists and has certain characteristics.
What is doing the “owning”? Your mind, or your soul…?
Either your mind or your soul, depending on your perspective on life.
It is important to say own instead of control, because my definition of ownership puts an ethical obligation on other people not to interfere. If I control my finger, there isn’t necessarily an ethical obligation on other people to not control it. By own I am saying, “It is my property.”
if it’s the mind, and you don’t believe in souls… the mind is a part of the body, it ceases to exist when the body dies.
So he body owns itself?
“my definition of ownership puts an ethical obligation on other people not to interfere.”
What is that ethical obligation exactly, could you explain it a bit more?
Yes. Some might even say that you have a higher right to your mind because of this, which would justify things like stealing in the case of a famine (necessary to survive). I don’t think I fall into this camp at the moment.
For the mind, it would really be freedom of thought – I should be able to think whatever I want without someone else attacking me.
But, I was wondering if you agreed with self-ownership under my definition:
“I should be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights, without someone else using my body in some way I don’t want them to.”
By “yes” I meant that part of the body owns the rest of the body. Obviously the finger wouldn’t own anything, for example.
“What is that ethical obligation exactly, could you explain it a bit more?”
That would be based on your own theory of “right” and “wrong.” If there exists some standard of right and wrong, then an ethical obligation would just say that it is wrong if you don’t do it.
But, I was wondering if you agreed with self-ownership under my definition:
I just find it odd to talk about owning yourself. I don’t think of myself in that way. I just think of myself as myself. I don’t think that I am my property.
“That would be based on your own theory of “right” and “wrong.”
But you said there was a particular ethical obligation due to it being your ‘property’ rather than just something you ‘control’. What is it about the term ‘property’ which gives it that extra ethical dimension?
Then you just disagree with terminology. The definition is all that is important. If it is true that the definition applies to yourself, then surely it applies to your finger, which means it surely applies to your finger when you cut it off and applies to the apple you put in your mouth (because it becomes part of your body). Agreed?
Do you believe in right in wrong? That’s all I was really saying by your theory of it.
Control means you are just using it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that if I punch you while you are doing so, that it is wrong.
Ownership (under my definition) means that you have the right to use it, and exclude others from using it. This means that it is wrong if someone punches you while you are using it.
I’m going to post my reply at the bottom of the page as this thread is too small now and I have to keep scrolling up to get to the comment box.
Great. How many more times will we have to do this? 😉
Since this hasn’t been deleted yet I’ll chime in.
“Bob Roddis repeatedly argues that Rothbardianism is simply “the rigorous enforcement of the non-aggression principle”.
Honestly, I’ll let Bob Roddis defend himself, but there’s really no reason to not to think he knows his Rothbard. You seem to be looking at shorthand and/or sloppy language, much like the link you sent.
“He just assumes that the Rothbardian theory of property rights is absolutely correct.”
Or he’s read up on the matter and been convinced. Do you see how those two things are different?
“In fact Rothbardianism is not simply “the rigorous enforcement of the non-aggression principle”.
Rothbardianism is “the rigorous enforcement of Rothbardian property rights theory”.
Do you see how those two things are different?”
The two are ultimately the same, *if* one understands the NAP as being derived from Rothbard’s view of private property. Of course, you could say “I’m for enforcing the NAP too, just Rothbard’s idea of “aggression” is wrong or too crude and mine is totally right.” Then you two just need to go back a step and argue about the contours
Do you see how much easier it is to say NAP versus “‘Agression from the foundation of Rothbardian property rights theory”?
Here’s a useful link that sums this up.
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2010/01/wanna-play-game.html
K.P.
Bob Roddis is playing the game Gene Callahan describes.
“Do you see how much easier it is to say NAP versus “‘Agression from the foundation of Rothbardian property rights theory”?”
It is simply misleading and incorrect to state that Rothbardianism is just “the rigorous enforcement of the NAP”. It is not. It is the ‘rigorous enforcement of Rothbardian property rights theory’, or ‘the rigorous enforcement of the Rothbardian ideology’.
“The two are ultimately the same, *if* one understands the NAP as being derived from Rothbard’s view of private property.”
Someone who doesn’t believe in Rothbard’s view of private property, could also claim to support the NAP.
“Do you see how much easier it is to say NAP versus “‘Agression from the foundation of Rothbardian property rights theory”?”
It might be easier, but it is also misleading and simply a deceptive rhetorical trick.
“It might be easier, but it is also misleading and simply a deceptive rhetorical trick.”
Did you read the comments linked to, or my comment even? (It answers each concern you just brought up again)
“It might be easier, but it is also misleading and simply a deceptive rhetorical trick.”
There’s no reason to think it’s a trick whatsoever. You might be mislead, but that’s only because he’s not going the extra length to explain the grounding of “aggression”. Nor should he be expected to, in libertarian circles, at least around the more Rothbardian parts of the internet it’s fairly well-established, even if it’s contours or general usefulness is disputed.
One doesn’t wander onto a mostly Marxist forum or blog and demand they elaborate their peculiar use of, say, “exploitation”
I read Callahan’s post, I didn’t read the comments below it.
“Nor should he be expected to, in libertarian circles”
But the rhetoric is not only used in right-wing libertarian circles, it is actively and purposefully used by right-wing libertarians in non-right-wing libertarian circles, as a way of declaring moral superiority. As in: “You support aggression, whereas I don’t, because I support the NAP”.
It is a rhetorical trick, even if those that use it aren’t fully aware of that fact, and believe in the underlying ideology.
“One doesn’t wander onto a mostly Marxist forum or blog and demand they elaborate their peculiar use of, say, “exploitation”
I presume people do actually do that all the time. And if a Marxist were to wander onto a right-wing libertarian blog and start accusing people of supporting exploitation, they would no doubt quickly start questioning the underlying foundations of his argument.
“But the rhetoric is not only used in right-wing libertarian circles, it is actively and purposefully used by right-wing libertarians in non-right-wing libertarian circles, as a way of declaring moral superiority. As in: “You support aggression, whereas I don’t, because I support the NAP”.”
Then perhaps you should raise your objection to those individuals there.
“I presume people do actually do that all the time.”
And they are rightfully laughed out of there.
“And if a Marxist were to wander onto a right-wing libertarian blog and start accusing people of supporting exploitation, they would no doubt quickly start questioning the underlying foundations of his argument.”
And the Marxist would have been well-advised to prepare himself beforehand. (Assuming he wasn’t just trolling)
Reece,
“Land is similar. If I make a path, or plow it, or graze it, I am mixing my labor (or my other property) with it, so I would say gain ownership over it. So, I don’t see why land would be different.”
Right, you made the path, or the furrow, or put cattle on the land, but that doesn’t mean you created the land itself.
No, but it’s the same thing with any other product. The Wiki article separated land from other products of one’s labor. So, if it is true that you can’t gain ownership over something because you did not create it, then the problem exists for all other items. So, me building a hut would not make me own the hut, because I did not actually create the wood itself. Essentially, it’s an argument against the entire idea of homesteading, not an argument against owning land as it seems to be portrayed.
Yes it is an argument against the homesteading theory of property.
“So, me building a hut would not make me own the hut, because I did not actually create the wood itself.”
Perhaps you could say you own the hut, but not the wood itself. However, for someone to take the wood they would need a just reason to undo your hut.
“Yes it is an argument against the homesteading theory of property.”
Well, we’re arguing over deriving it above, so that’s really it for this here.
“Perhaps you could say you own the hut, but not the wood itself. However, for someone to take the wood they would need a just reason to undo your hut.”
Okay, in that case you could say you own your arrangement of the land, but not the land itself. Or, you own the farm, but not the land, or the path but not the land, or the road but not the land, or whatever you made. If you can own that, then it is no different practically than owning the land. So, we’d just be arguing over terms.
not necessarily, as if you don’t own the land itself someone else could claim a right to use it.
But in order to do that they might have to undo what you did. In which case you would need a better reason than them, to not undo what you did.
You would have two conflicting claims, which couldn’t necessarily be decided by appealing to ‘ownership’ on its own, but would need some further justification.
“But in order to do that they might have to undo what you did. In which case you would need a better reason than them, to not undo what you did.”
Okay, but that applies to the hut too. So, again, if this is a problem with land, it’s a problem with all property in a homesteading theory. If, in the thread below now, I manage to derive a homesteading theory, then this won’t be a problem in either case.
good luck
Forget it, Reece. Philippe is a hopeless imbecile. It’s like explaining a card trick to a cat – fun for awhile but ultimately fruitless. He can’t even grasp the concept of self ownership.
‘self-ownership’ is meaningless.
“Then you just disagree with terminology. The definition is all that is important. If it is true that the definition applies to yourself, then surely it applies to your finger, which means it surely applies to your finger when you cut it off and applies to the apple you put in your mouth (because it becomes part of your body). Agreed?”
ah, by referring to myself as ‘my self’, are you suggesting I am saying that I am my property?
It seems odd to refer to my self as my property. My self is me. It’s meaningless to say that me owns me.
No, you said “alright” earlier when I said my definition and asked if you supported it. I thought you were agreeing with ownership under that definition. Myself is just a common term, so I wouldn’t assume you agreed with ownership based off that.
“I should be able to do whatever I want with my body, as long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s rights, without someone else using my body in some way I don’t want them to.” Do you accept that?
depends how you define “infringe on someone else’s rights”.
For example, governments have a right to pass laws which may restrict what you can do within their jurisdiction. But you do have the option to leave the jurisdiction and go elsewhere.
It just means that if there are other rights that people have, I can’t break them. So, if you have the right to walk across the street, I can’t use my body to stop you.
ok
please, continue
wait, were you agreeing that government have a right to pass laws, or disagreeing?
Neither, yet. If the government has the right to pass laws, then they do. Otherwise, no. My definition doesn’t stop the government from passing laws yet. Do you agree with the definition, and that this applies to my finger?
Unfortunately I’m going to have to go soon by the way, because it’s really late and also happens to be the first week of finals.
I don’t really agree with the idea of “self-ownership” as it seems meaningless to me.
I am me. Not I own me.
However, I agree with your statement about what you can do, so long as it leaves open, at this point, the possibility that governments have a right to pass laws, as I get the feeling that may turn out to be important at some point 😉
Hooray! 🙂
Okay, so back with the apple then – If I own my body, then putting something in my body must make me own it (because really my body is just made up of food I’ve eaten and water). So, if I pick an apple, and it doesn’t violate someone’s rights by picking it, then putting it in my mouth would gain ownership of it. Correct?
My other example earlier was my finger. If I detach my finger, I still own it, right?
(All ownership here is under the same definition as before.)
“If I own my body, then putting something in my body must make me own it”
back to the ‘self ownership’ thing again.
As I said, I don’t think it makes sense to say that I own me.
Given that my body is a part of me, I’m not sure it makes sense to say that I own my body. Rather my body IS me.
Anyway, let’s say you own your body. So you take an apple, eat it and part of it becomes part of your body.
Does it only become your property once it has been transformed into part of your body, or whilst it is sitting inside your body, being digested? What about the bit of the apple which your body doesn’t assimilate, which gets evacuated. What is the status of that part?
moving on, I will say yes you own your detatched finger
But you agreed the term fit. So I was just using a term for it. We could use a new term instead, like “Quagoool.” So, you quagoool your body.
As for your next post: good question. How much your body has to do to it to own it would be fairly subjective. That would have to be determined in a society that used these kinds of property rules. But, the point is that you gain ownership over the apple at some point, so you can gain ownership over something not owned before.
ok…
Alright, so I own my mouth and stomach, and put an apple into my mouth, and gained ownership of it. So, I mixed my current property with unowned property, and gained new property. So, I can also use my hands to, say, build a hut and gain ownership of the hut. I can mix the labor of my property (hands) with unowned items (wood). And, I own it even when it is not touching me, for the same reason I own my finger when it is not on my body. Because, my property need not be on me for me to own it.
do you put the hut in your mouth too?
No, but I could put wood in my mouth. Both my mouth is my property and my hands are my property. If I can mix the wood and mouth to gain ownership, there is no reason I couldn’t mix my hand and wood to gain ownership.
in your apple example you said it became your property because it became part of your body.
“So, I mixed my current property with unowned property, and gained new property.”
Well, part of the apple became part of your body. Not so with the hut.
“So, I can also use my hands to, say, build a hut and gain ownership of the hut. I can mix the labor of my property (hands) with unowned items (wood).”
Now you have changed again. Before you said you mixed your property with unowned property, and so gained new property. The apple literally became part of your body. But now you say you mix the labour of your property with unowned items. This is different. Now you are not cmixing your property with unowned property, you are “mixing” your labour with unowned stuff.
How do you “mix labour”? What does that mean exactly?
Apparently you want me to think that working on wood with your hands is the same thing as ingesting an apple. Well, it’s not really, is it.
“there is no reason I couldn’t mix my hand and wood to gain ownership.”
But you’re not mixing your hand and wood. You’re not splicing wood onto your hand are you? You’re not grinding up the wood into a fine powder and then injecting it into your, veins are you?
What you said you are doing is “mixing” your labour with the wood, which is not the same thing as eating an apple which then becomes part of your body.
“Well, part of the apple became part of your body. Not so with the hut.”
I don’t think I said it had to become part of your body before. That wouldn’t make much sense. How can one determine what part of one’s body is? My hair is part of my body, but it is sort of outside at the same time. Someone with prosthetic limbs clearly has it part of their body even though it isn’t really inside the body. And sometimes it can be very unclear. Contacts, casts for broken bones, knee braces, braces, and of course prosthetic limbs all could be considered part of the body by many.
Why is it so that if I enclose the food and mix it with acids it becomes my property, but when I use my hands and perhaps enclose it and shape it, does it not become my property?
As for mixing labor with mixing, it doesn’t really matter. For food, it’s true it is being very mixed. But, still, if you go to a small enough level, you gained property in something just by using property you already had.
I was going by what you said:
“If I own my body, then putting something in my body must make me own it (because really my body is just made up of food I’ve eaten and water).”
“What you said you are doing is “mixing” your labour with the wood, which is not the same thing as eating an apple which then becomes part of your body.”
But why wouldn’t only the parts you already had ownership in be your property? Why do you gain ownership over the nutrients and other parts of the apple? There is labor being done upon the apple by your body. It is changing it to some extent. But at a small enough level, it is just moving the apple around.
To a smaller extent, that’s what you do with your hands to wood when you make a hut. How much you have to do is an interesting question, but not one that denies homesteading in total.
I think you misunderstood me there. I was pointing out that the apple MUST eventually become mine, because you said I owned my body, but my body is entirely made up of food and water I ate. I wasn’t saying that was the reason.
I was more clear in an earlier post:
“Some basic level of property rights are immediately apparent from self-ownership. My body is just made up of food I’ve eaten and water I drank in the past. Suppose I walk up to an apple tree. Nobody has ever been there before. I pick an apple, and put it in my mouth. It is now part of my body. I own it. Before, I did not own it. Hence, I gained ownership over an outside object. Would you agree?”
Stating it the second time I admit it was a bit more rushed.
ok, I’m trying to see how this logic of yours is supposed to work.
1. you own your body
2. therefore if you put something into your body you own that thing too.
– really, why?
3. therefore if you work on something with your hands you own that thing too.
– huh?
you’ve lost me but, Reece. Are you saying the apple becomes your property because it becomes part of your body when you digest it, or not? That is what you seem to be saying here:
“I pick an apple, and put it in my mouth. It is now part of my body. I own it.”
1. you own your body
2. your body is made up of previously unowned materials
3. therefore you must have gained ownership of them somehow
You agreed up to this point.
4. How was this done?
I argued that it was because you mixed your labor with the materials.
I don’t think any other theory makes sense. Being covered by other parts of my property would clearly lead to odd conclusions. Other methods just treat my stomach or my mouth as some special property, which doesn’t make sense. That would have to be one of the higher rules we agreed could exist at first, which we did not base self-ownership off of.
My “because” was meant as a “it wouldn’t make sense otherwise because” not “this is logically derived from.”
Philippe,
Regarding that “self-ownership” doesn’t make sense to you. I think I can make that clear.
What does it mean to “own” something. It means to control it. That’s all. The owner determines what happens with this something.
Self-ownership only therefor only means: You control yourself. This should be obvious and undisputable. That is why those theorists start there. The only problem is that self-ownership sounds very strange. So I see people arguing over the thing that shouldn’t be much of a problem discuss all day.
The theory of property is the theory of who should be in control of what.
Skylien, if ownership is just control then self-ownership is meaningless as a concept. Should control and do control are very different things. If I steal a car, I control it, but I would not say I own it. Regardless, you would just be pushing the problem back one step. Philippe could just say that he agrees with self-ownership, but not that one should own themselves at all times.
Anyway, I’m off for a bit. I’ll check back here when I have time sometime in the future.
alright
Reece,
Well there is ownership and “just” ownership just as someone can be in control or also in “just” control of something.
Property theory asks who “should” be in (ultimate) control of something, who is the “just” owner.
If I allow you to use my car, I am still the one who ultimately is in (just) control of the car even if you are currently steering it. You are doing it with my permission.
On the other hand if I hold a gun to your head to make you do certain things you wouldn’t do otherwise I have taken control of you to a certain degree even if the final decision lies with you if you follow my orders or not. I have in a sense made you my property, made you my slave, taken control of you. In short with the gun I own you. The question is, was it just of me to take control of you with the gun?
Since this wouldn’t work reciprocally, I say obviously no.
In German we have two words to distinguish between the ultimate/just owner and the guy who currently owns it (is in direct control of). The guy who really owns the car is the “Eigentümer” and the guy being in direct control of it is the current “Besitzer”. Also a guy who steals the car is in German called the current “Besitzer”.
Maybe “Besitzer” could be best translated as possessor.
So “Eigentümer” describes the legal view, while “Besitzer” describes the actual reality of who is in direct control.
For property theory it doesn’t really matter who is the current “possessor” as long as the will of the just owner is followed then he also is in ultimate control no matter the current possessor.
However to understand what people mean when the very clumsy and a little bit dumb sounding expression of “self-ownership” is said, it really helps to think of it in terms of “control” because that is what it finally is all about.
so on what basis would you say that someone is the ‘just’ owner of something?
Well, that is the tough nut to crack.
As far as my thinking currently goes reciprocity is most important, and only with anarchy you can have a just and reciprocal property theory in which really all people enjoy the same rights.
Does that mean I am for anarchy? I am not so sure because I don’t know if it would really work. But at least I am honest enough (or maybe I am just aware of it) that with states like they are today there aren’t equal rights for all people.
They are currently based on majorities in arbitrarily set areas that cannot be justified by any logical argument. Be in the majority you win, be in the minority you lose, and no you are not allowed to carve out borders that would make you the majority in that area (=secession).
So the only thing needed to have anarchy, was the unilateral unconditional right to secede down to the individual level. Would people secede en mas, especially individually? I don’t think so. Could it result in Chaos. I don’t know. Nevertheless it sounds much better to request the ultimate right for secession for everyone bases on the right of self-determination of people than asking for anarchy, although it is the same thing.
Does that mean I am for anarchy? I am not so sure because I don’t know if it would really work.
You’re dead to me, skylien.
Philippe,
On the “self-ownership” issue:
Why ought someone not attempt to make you their slave (assuming they were able to, for this scenario)?
“You’re dead to me, skylien.”
Bob, I am sorry. I guess I am suffering from the “agnostic-gene”.
But I am all open to go into that direction, if we can convince our fellow human beings that it is worth a try.
Okay, Skylien, I’m not going to argue over a definition, so I’ll accept that for the sake of the discussion. But, nobody would disagree with self-ownership under that definition, so I don’t see the relevance in the discussion we were having.
Reece,
“nobody would disagree with self-ownership under that definition”
I don’t think that saying something like “your conscious mind has a degree of control over your bodily actions”, or something similar, is the same thing as saying “you own yourself”.
The idea of “self ownership” implants a word which is really about the relationship between a person and something else (‘ownership’), into the idea of the existence of the individual person.
Personally I find the idea strange and not intuitive, as I do not think of me as ‘my property’. I also think that way of describing yourself seems nonsensical. How can you own you?
Instead I think ‘I am me’, rather than ‘I own me’.
@ Reece,
Just see Philippe’s response. That is the same I felt when I read first about self-ownership.
That is the reason why I think this term is not a good way of transmitting the actual idea behind it.
Bob,
Ok I know now what you meant. Maybe I can resurrect myself for you a little.
Due to my “agnostic-gene” I find it quite hard to commit if I cannot understand all implications of certain ideas.
However, if you asked me if I would enforce (or let someone else enforce on my behalf) non-reciprocal principles on which our current states are founded, then no I would not. I would never shoot someone because he wants to secede. Never! I guess that would make me a practicing anarchist.
Skylien,
“you control yourself” seems to make more sense than “you own yourself”, which reduces to I own Me, which as far as I can see is pretty incoherent or meaningless
However, thinking about it some more, “you control yourself” doesn’t seem to me to be necessarily true either. It might be more accurate to say that you have a conscious part of your mind which tries to think and behave rationally, which can exercise some control over other parts of your mind, such as the unconscious or subconscious parts of your mind. Also you can consciously make yourself do things, such as walk around and speak. However there are also plenty of other things within yourself that you can’t consciously control, such as all of your automatic bodily functions (your heart beat, for example). So it seems to me that “you control yourself” isn’t really all that clear cut. Again, who is the “you” in “you control yourself”? Is it the conscious “you” or the automatic “you”, or the subconscious “you”? These different parts of yourself don’t always work in concert, so identifying them all as a singular you could be problematic.
(Sorry. Let me post this here because of the comment box thing to which you referred.)
On the “self-ownership” issue:
Why ought someone not attempt to make you their slave (assuming they were able to, for this scenario)?
guest,
“Why ought someone not attempt to make you their slave”
you could put forward a number of different reasons for why slavery is fundamentally immoral or unethical, but I don’t think the concept of “self ownership” really works in that regard, because the concept is very clearly open to the accusation that it is meaningless. “I own I” doesn’t seem to make sense, because I am I. Ownership implies a relationship between a person and something else, such as “I own that house”. I don’t see how someone can be their own property. Unless you mean to say something like “my mind owns my body”, but this assumes the mind and body are separate things.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives, or asserts some reasons as to why slavery is wrong:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”
Free to do what? Or freedom from what?
good question…
rather than attempt to philosophically justify the pronouncements of the human rights declaration, I’d rather try to understand how the “self ownership” idea results in the conclusion that slavery is morally wrong, given that it is the subject of discussion here.
I assume you believe in “self ownership”. Perhaps you could explain why slavery is therefore wrong.
I think it may be the case that the concept of “self ownership” only makes sense as a response to a prior claim of ownership of another person. Maybe that’s why it’s hard for some people to get it; It’s only an issue when someone thinks another person doesn’t have authority over themselves.
If I claim you as my property, your claim of me as your property is just as authoritative, and then where are we?
But notice that in order for our claims to cancel each other out, each of us must have the authority to deny a claim over ourselves.
So, we can’t oppose slavery without assuming self ownership.
Once self ownership is acknowledged, the homesteading theory of property follows logically.
By the way, the homesteading theory isn’t that you can put a fence around something and declare it as yours.
The homesteading theory is that, because you have expended your time and labor on something (that was not previously owned), for someone else to make a claim on the fruit of your labor is for that person to make a claim on your labor, making you out to be their slave.
Also consider that no one is wronged by homesteading. If you didn’t own something, then nothing is being stolen from you if someone homesteads it.
Aside: I did notice how my question went unanswered. But we’re in the same boat, so I think I can accomplish more with this approach.
I didn’t answer your question because getting into an argument about the coherence of other theories of ethics moves the topic from the current focus, which is Rothbardian-type theory and the idea of “self ownership”.
You wrote:
“If I claim you as my property, your claim of me as your property is just as authoritative, and then where are we?”
You’re assuming that all people are equal and thus have equal ‘authority’.
Supporters of slavery denied this in the past, or else claimed that slaves weren’t really, or fully, human like themselves. Slaves were often considered to be less conscious or individual beings, similar in some ways to farm animals.
People make the similar arguments today regarding animals: it is ok to ‘own’ them as property and to kill and eat them, because they are inferior to humans and ‘just animals’.
… getting into an argument about the coherence of other theories of ethics moves the topic …
To be sure, theories of ethics is what this issue will ultimately reduce to.
I am also attempting to not go that route unless necessary.
You’re assuming that all people are equal and thus have equal ‘authority’.
Me and my “equal authority”, profit-seeking greed.
😀
Supporters of slavery denied this in the past, or else claimed that slaves weren’t really, or fully, human like themselves.
I don’t think this was the case.
Blacks were considered property, and so could not be citizens. But I don’t think it could be missed that they were fully human.
The Three-Fifths Compromise had to do with State representation in Congress, not with personhood.
Things that you cannot consciously control and for which no conflicts can arise per definition don’t need to be treated by property theory.
Property theory is needed to answer questions of conflicts for which people actually have the power to handle this issue this or another way. So per definition it is only about things we can control consciously.
I agree it is definitely debatable what can be controlled consciously. But this is another story, isn’t it?
ok, so the question is whether you can logically derive a system of property rights from the proposition “you control yourself”, without having to make some unfounded conceptual leaps.
You nailed it.
Or at least with as few unfounded conceptual leaps as possible.
one unfounded conceptual leap is one too many, if you claim that your argument is rigorously logical and irrefutable.
I don’t claim that. I only wanted to clearify the approach of natural rights theorists.
I just wanted to acknowledge the possibility that it might not be possible without at least one leap. However fewer leaps should be better in any case, right?
not necessarily. it depends on the leap, and what you are trying to prove.
you can’t claim to have a fully worked out, rigorously logical and self-evident theory of how everything should be organized, if your theory involves taking leaps of faith over conceptual black holes.
I guess both of us want possibly non arbitrary rules that count for all people to the same degree, right?
Please understand, I claim nothing, except that it is in both of our interest to have an “intuitive” non-arbitrary property theory as far as possible. Or do you want as much arbitrariness as possible?
I hope “as far as possible” makes it clear what I mean. If it is possible like natural rights theorists assume then great!
If not then only fill the holes, but don’t throw all the useful stuff out of the window because one part doesn’t follow automatically..
Skylien,
“I guess both of us want possibly non arbitrary rules that count for all people to the same degree, right?
Please understand, I claim nothing, except that it is in both of our interest to have an “intuitive” non-arbitrary property theory as far as possible. Or do you want as much arbitrariness as possible?”
No I don’t particularly want arbitrariness.
I noticed in another of your comments that you described national borders as arbitrary. I’m not sure that is really a correct description. After all, those borders didn’t just randomly come into being. They are the result of a long and complex history, a history shaped by the purposeful actions of masses of conscious individuals.
Furthermore, if you claim that national borders and the laws which define contemporary societies are arbitrary, then it seems to follow that the private property claims which exist within those societies are also arbitrary.
What I emphasize is reciprocity. With boarders enforced no matter what this is not given.
If a group of people within an area do not accept the boarders due to the majorities will, and their purposeful behaviour to leave that country to draw their own boarders (which makes them the majority in that area), is what? It is just another piece in what you call “the result of a long and complex history, a history shaped by the purposeful actions of masses of conscious individuals.”
How do you justify to stop that complex process with (the threat of) physical force?
Boarders are arbitrary if they are defended with physical force against peaceful acting people who want to change them by merely leaving with their legally owned land. -> Secession.
“leaving with their legally owned land”
they may legally own their house or land, but that doesn’t mean they have a legal right to make up their own laws, which is what you suggest they do have or should have the right to do.
Now we are back to square one. Who has the right to make his own laws? They aren’t god fiven are they?
…god given…
re your secession point, say you live in a city for example and decide that you personally want to “secede”. What does that mean? You just stay in your apartment, never come out, never get anything from the outside world, and you should be allowed to exempt yourself from laws and rules and obligations to the community around you? It doesn’t make much sense does it.
Philippe:
Why doesn’t private land owners who only deal with other private land owners, including private road providers and airliners, and abide by their own laws they agree to, “not make much sense”?
i’m not talking about imagination land, I’m talking about skylien’s idea of ‘individual secession’.
I agree, as I stated further above already myself people wouldn’t secede much individually because that is highly impractical. Apart from the fact that you need your own land to secede. Else you will be on the property of another country, which means you have to follow their rules.
The only reason that there needs to be at least the right for even individual secession is that there is no logical stopping point. A state can secede from a federal union. A region or a town from a state. There is just no logical stopping point. Else reciprocity would not be reached.
The Checks and Slovaks went their own ways in the 90s. The old Yugoslavia split in many new states. The US seceded (violently) from England… Scotland soon decides if it wants to be out. I applaud England for their recent stance on this matter and letting many of their former colonies and territories just decide for themselves. Just as it should be. Though I doubt they are as graceful down to the individual level.
If a single person wants to go the hard way of seceding (with land!) alone. Why stop him? There is absolutely no reason to shoot him for that. Just because something is impractical doesn’t give you the right to shoot people going this impractical way.
I’m talking about skylien’s idea of ‘individual secession’.
In your view, do we have an example of skylien’s idea of individual secession from which you would be comfortable drawing conclusions?
if some guy with some land in the middle of the US decides to ‘secede’, again, what does that really mean? He stays on his land and never leaves? He receives nothing from the outside world? He doesn’t trade with the outside world? He receives no income?
What will his neighbours and the rest of the community think when they find out that he pays no taxes for the local services that he benefits from, even if he never leaves his property? They’ll think “I pay so why doesn’t he?”
What about the law. He should just do whatever he wants? You think other people would be ok with that? Maybe if all he wants to do is smoke his own weed, no one will care. But what if he decides he wants to start making and stockpiling bombs?
Philippe:
“i’m not talking about imagination land, I’m talking about skylien’s idea of ‘individual secession’.”
Why doesn’t imagination land makes sense to you?
Philippe:
“if some guy with some land in the middle of the US decides to ‘secede’, again, what does that really mean?”
To secede means to no longer be under the authority of the government whom is being seceded from.
“He stays on his land and never leaves?”
No. The government doesn’t own any land in the US. He can go to where the actual owners allow him to go.
“He receives nothing from the outside world?”
The government isn’t the world.
“He doesn’t trade with the outside world?”
The government isn’t a trader.
“He receives no income?”
The government does not earn income to give.
“What will his neighbours and the rest of the community think when they find out that he pays no taxes for the local services that he benefits from, even if he never leaves his property?”
Depends on who you ask. If you ask someone who thinks he should pay taxes, then it can be explained why he does not. If you ask someone who knows taxes are theft, he might inquire as to how to secede himself.
“They’ll think “I pay so why doesn’t he?”
Depends. Not everyone will say that. And even if they did, it wouldn’t make any difference to what is just and moral.
“What about the law.”
The law is not just.
“He should just do whatever he wants?”
To disobey law X, does not imply disobeying all laws whatever.
“You think other people would be ok with that?”
Depends on who you ask.
“Maybe if all he wants to do is smoke his own weed, no one will care.”
Depends.
“But what if he decides he wants to start making and stockpiling bombs?”
You mean what if he’s a government? Then you would support him and say “good job, when do I vote for you?”
There’s no real point arguing with you as you just repetitively assert the same stuff.
“The government doesn’t own any land in the US.”
Response: Yes it does.
Now we get the stock repetition of the “homesteading” assertion.
Round and round. Completely pointless.
Philippe,
I start a new reply chain. I guess that is easier.
Why wouldn’t he leave? Canadians got to the US and vice versa. Canadians get things from the US.
What services does he get? If he is sovereign he can’t call the police from the US to help him. He can’t go to their courts, etc.. And if you tell me that he receives the service of being defended automatically by the US army, then guess what. This service also is received by Canada. They too benefit greatly by having the mighty power of the US military as their neighbor. No one thinks they should pay up too. Also do you think that you could charge your neighbor if you have a very nice garden, and he enjoys looking at it, but he doesn’t care to do the same for you?
Also depending on how the US deals with such secessions, they could still offer him all kinds of those service based on direct invoice according to efforts or even like an insurance policy. It would just mean they would not shoot him if he doesn’t want those services.
No of course he can’t do what he wants. Canada can’t do what they want near the boarder of the US. They can’t pollute as they want. They can’t put nuclear missiles there without having the US complain about that, can they? He has to do many things bigger states also have to do.
Which is the reason this would be so impractical, he would have to do diplomacy himself while trying to make income. Right he can grow weed, and smoke as much as he wants. But he cannot violate laws from the US which regulate things like how close can you build a building next to another building at the boarder, pollute like he wants or build bombs like he wants etc… If he would then the US could still send their police, and since he is sovereign even the military. He can’t defend anyway.
Look at many micro states in the world, like the Fürstentum Lichtenstein. They are not building any nuclear bombs. Why would they? Those are basically only useful to very big countries playing the big geo strategic game.
So in the end apart from some things he could really do without limit, like smoking pot, and drinking raw milk, his life would probably be quite miserable, which is why secessions tends to be done as big as possible.
“Why wouldn’t he leave?” If he does then he’s not just on his little patch, is he.
“What services does he get?” All the benefits that he gets from living in a country like the US.
“If he is sovereign” He’s not sovereign, he just decided he doesn’t want to follow the rules of the society he lives in. That won’t work out for him. Not just because the gubment won’t allow it, but because most people won’t tolerate it.
“he can’t call the police from the US to help him. He can’t go to their courts, etc.” Yes he can and indeed he would have to because he would still be recognized as a citizen of the US. Besides he doesn’t have to call the police or go to court to benefit from the police and courts.
“No one thinks they should pay up too.” Well they do actually, it’s called being an ally.
“they could still offer him all kinds of those service based on direct invoice.” The state isn’t a private company. It’s an organized legal and political community. Privatizing the services provided by the state would require the agreement of other members of that community.
“It would just mean they would not shoot him.” It is illegal to shoot someone because they refuse to pay taxes.
“which is why secessions tends to be done as big as possible”
So-called ‘individual secession’ has no legitimacy. It’s just one guy saying he doesn’t want to abide by the rules of the society he lives in and telling everyone else to go f**k themselves.
Sorry that are all non-sequiturs to my points. Just one thing. If you don’t pay taxes they come and take your property and put you in jail. If you resist that you finally get shot. It seems you don’t understand how the state works.
But generally we don’t get any further this way so lets turn the game around now, and you explain your worldview:
Are you generally against secession? If not, at which point should it be forbidden and why? 1 million? 1000? 500? 3?
“If you don’t pay taxes they come and take your property and put you in jail. If you resist that you finally get shot. It seems you don’t understand how the state works.”
Actually they arrest you and take you to court where you are judged and either fined or sentenced by the court.
If you refuse to pay your bills or your debts, the same thing happens.
It seems you don’t understand how the state works. The state establishes and enforces property laws and legal obligations within its jurisdiction, such as the obligation to pay debts and taxes you owe.
If you consistently refuse to pay your private rent, “men with guns” eventually come to get you.
If the police are enforcing a private property claim, and you start shooting at them, then you might get shot. The same goes if they are enforcing any other law. The lesson is, don’t start shooting at the police if you don’t want to get shot.
Ok, lets stop the discussion here. I have repeatedly asked questions that you have avoided, but which would have been necessary to clarify to not have this discussion now what the state does when enforcing taxation and if it is legitimate. So the discussion just starts to turn in circles.
you asked a lot of questions and I gave answers to them. The basic point is you think an individual should be able to decide not to abide by any of the rules of the community in which he lives, and he should be able to do this without any happening to him, and that this is a really moral sort of thing do to. I think that’s a ridiculous assertion.
also you try to make out that there is something special about enforcement of the law in the case of taxes, but the reality is that all law, including private property law, involves the same form of enforcement.
So-called ‘individual secession’ has no legitimacy. It’s just one guy saying he doesn’t want to abide by the rules of the society …
From where does “society” derive its authority to make rules?