Difference between revisions of "Oh God, Please Not Libertarianism.../mixing"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "<!-- you can have any number of categories here --> Category:John Locke Category:Nathan Robinson Category:David Boaz Category:The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto f...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
 
<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:John Locke]]
 
 
[[Category:Nathan Robinson]]
 
[[Category:Nathan Robinson]]
 +
[[Category:John Locke]]
 
[[Category:David Boaz]]
 
[[Category:David Boaz]]
 
[[Category:The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom]]
 
[[Category:The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom]]
Line 7: Line 7:
 
{{Quote
 
{{Quote
 
| text = The jump from the right to self-ownership to the right of property ownership always occurs hastily, as if the libertarian knows full well he’s fudging one of the most dubious steps of his proof. Boaz makes the unfortunate decision to choose John Locke’s theory of “labor mixing” as his preferred means of papering over the leap. This is the theory, dating from 1689, that when a person “mixes” her labor with a thing (say by turning a tree into a chair), she develops a property right in it. Why this should be so, nobody knows. What “mixing” even is, nobody knows either. Boaz doesn’t attempt to define it; its function is simply to jury-rig a rickety theoretical bridge that will suffice until the next deduction is made. So long as the reader blinks, she will fail to notice that the entire natural rights justification for property is built upon flashy prestidigitation.
 
| text = The jump from the right to self-ownership to the right of property ownership always occurs hastily, as if the libertarian knows full well he’s fudging one of the most dubious steps of his proof. Boaz makes the unfortunate decision to choose John Locke’s theory of “labor mixing” as his preferred means of papering over the leap. This is the theory, dating from 1689, that when a person “mixes” her labor with a thing (say by turning a tree into a chair), she develops a property right in it. Why this should be so, nobody knows. What “mixing” even is, nobody knows either. Boaz doesn’t attempt to define it; its function is simply to jury-rig a rickety theoretical bridge that will suffice until the next deduction is made. So long as the reader blinks, she will fail to notice that the entire natural rights justification for property is built upon flashy prestidigitation.
| cite = [[]], "{{Link |Oh God, Please Not Libertarianism...}}"
+
| cite = [[Nathan Robinson]], "{{Link |Oh God, Please Not Libertarianism...}}"
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 03:14, 18 September 2017