Difference between revisions of "Libertarians Misunderstand Property"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with 'Libertarians routinely assume modern property is natural, is absolute, is costless, should extend over all, and solves all problems. None of that is true. see "bundle of rights"…')
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<!-- use some ideas from:  http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft  -->
 +
[[Category:What Is Wrong With Libertarianism|500]]
 +
[[Category:Failures Of Libertarian Philosophy|100]]
 +
[[Category:Property|150]]
 +
{{DES | des = Libertarians routinely assume modern property is natural, is absolute, is costless, should extend over all, and solves all problems. None of that is true.}}
 
Libertarians routinely assume modern property is natural, is absolute, is costless, should extend over all, and solves all problems. None of that is true.
 
Libertarians routinely assume modern property is natural, is absolute, is costless, should extend over all, and solves all problems. None of that is true.
 +
 +
Modern, liberal property (the right) is a human creation: it is not natural.  Simpler forms of "property" are primordial, mere temporary holdings (liberties), probably dating to combat over precambrian mates, food sources, and nest sites.  The [[Hohfeld’s_typology_of_rights|Hohfeldian]] point about liberties is how weak they are: anybody can interfere in them any way they want.  If you have the liberty to hold something, anybody can take it away if they want.  That's not a property right.  When libertarians babble about animals and children understanding property, they are actually describing holdings: those same animals and children understand yielding the holding to the bigger animal or kid.
 +
 +
Libertarian philosophers pretend that modern property predates government, when government creates modern property rights.  Nozick does this, for example.
 +
 +
How is property given? By restraining liberty; that is, by taking it away so far as necessary for the purpose. How is your house made yours? By debarring every one else from the liberty of entering it without your leave.
 +
Jeremy Bentham, "Anarchical Fallacies"
 +
 +
Enforcement is ultimately backed by the state, else it is backed by warlordism, feudalism, or anarchy.
 +
 +
There is no just acquisition of property.  There is only legitimated acquisition of property.
 +
 +
No form of property is universal: it varies widely from culture to culture, and often within cultures.  Water rights are different between East and West in the USA, tideline ownership varies between Eastern US states.
  
 
see "bundle of rights" in wikipedia, to see how the sphere resembles            a swiss cheese.  As we'd expect if there is an optimizing goal.
 
see "bundle of rights" in wikipedia, to see how the sphere resembles            a swiss cheese.  As we'd expect if there is an optimizing goal.
Line 45: Line 63:
  
 
Even individual wealth is a government construct: without coercive protection, nobody would be able to accumulate much wealth, and all would be much more equal (albeit very much poorer.) In general, libertarians want to overlook government action and (their term) coercion when it supports their preferences, and condemn it for others.
 
Even individual wealth is a government construct: without coercive protection, nobody would be able to accumulate much wealth, and all would be much more equal (albeit very much poorer.) In general, libertarians want to overlook government action and (their term) coercion when it supports their preferences, and condemn it for others.
 +
 +
Bodies are NEVER property (let alone absolute property) in any culture except in slavery.
 +
 +
You can’t get to libertarian absolute property through any prevailing normative theories in philosophy. The institution of property is inconsistent with voluntarism, negative liberty, the non-aggression principle, desert, and utility (it demands transfers.)

Latest revision as of 21:11, 9 September 2019