Flaws in libertarianism

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Jean »

This is not a hostile topic about libertarianism, I myself use it as my main guideline for personal ethic, but after several year, I cannot get over to questions and found no one who did.

A few years ago, I read "Man, Economy and State", because it was on jacob's book list.
I really enjoyed it, and found all the logical development brillant and unquestionables.
But I've always been frustrated with its definition of, and moral justification for property.

So first with the definition
You own a ressource and it's products when you aquired it with a freely agreed trade, or when you were the first to mix it with your labor to create value.
Aquired with a freely agreed trade ain't difficult, but every word in the second part is unclear.
How do you define value? Some land is valued as wilderness to be a hunting field, or maybe just to look at it. What do you use to say it's not value.
Or more clearly, part of the planet, that in a wilderness state, contribute to lot to keep this planet hospitable for us (which is value for everyone)

Every human should agree on what value is, this will never happen, so we can't use this to build a society on. We could say the same for labor and first, even if it is less problematic.

And the with justification.
When someone has nothing that someone would accept to trade for what he needs to survive, he can alway find unused land and produce it himself, so he doesn't has to choose between using violence, or dying. It was true in 1600 england or 1940 america, But this statement is wrong today.
There are no more free land reachable.
Which mean that someone with nothing, has to choose between taking it from someone, or dying. This results in violence.

Has someone ever tought about it and found other answers?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Two solutions that come to mind, given the premise, would be that you could create your own job using only your brains and your body and no further resources OR you could use discards as your resource to develop. Obvious choices of prostitution and garbage picking come to mind. Of course, if you find the use of violence less repugnant than prostitution or garbage picking, then that will be your choice.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Jean »

I'm not looking for practical solution.
Just a logical justification for private property that doesn't result in people having to be violent.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

There is no private property without violence. Private property is a man-made legal concept specifically upheld by the state (aka threat of violence, by any libertarian's definition).
Obvious choices of prostitution and garbage picking come to mind.
Really sums up the conceit of libertarianism. You are always free to choose. Even if the choice is between prostituting yourself and starving to death. Nope, nothing coercive about the lowest survival requirements on the hierarchy of needs. Just another "freely agreed trade" made on the "free market". 8-)

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by fiby41 »

The roads are not going to build themselves.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by fiby41 »

Spartan_Warrior wrote:There is no private property without violence. Private property is a man-made legal concept specifically upheld by the state (aka threat of violence, by any libertarian's definition)
And the government claims monopoly over violence inside it's territory.

FBeyer
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:25 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by FBeyer »

fiby41 wrote:
Spartan_Warrior wrote:There is no private property without violence. Private property is a man-made legal concept specifically upheld by the state (aka threat of violence, by any libertarian's definition)
And the government claims monopoly over violence inside it's territory.
In fact, some have actually defined a state as the area in which a single specific entitity holds the monopoly on violence.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Just a logical justification for private property that doesn't result in people having to be violent.
A cat pees on a fence to claim its property. A male gorilla intimidates other gorillas to claim what's his. "Civilized" people write contracts and laws to enforce those contracts. Its all essentially the same thing. You own your property about as much as the cat owns that fence.

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by vexed87 »

I would be sceptical of the statement that there is no 'free' land remaining, whilst the vast majority of land is now in private hands, it's impossible to police all of it, all of the time. So long as your fly under the radar, you can make use of much privately owned land and property. Admittedly, not within the confines of law. Yet if the law is held over you in violent fashion, and society does nothing to give you what you need to survive with dignity (a human right) whilst embracing that law, surely then you are justified in making use of that land and breaking that violent law. The law acts as a social contract, and so it must work for the majority. It cannot be enforced without the consent of the masses, therefore the masses have to be provided for, one way or another, less there be a revolution, and those who own property have it taken away from them.

Few but the most immoral of land owners would stand by and deny you the use of private but unmanaged land should society do nothing else to feed and shelter you. Even if you have nothing to trade, you could use your smarts to convince any land owner with promise of a share of the proceeds should you be permitted to farm a small plot of land, eventually you could save the capital required to buy back that land.
Last edited by vexed87 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by fiby41 »

Not all land is utilised for production. Land is also a commodity that is consumed, by say, living on it.

Vexed are you justifying encroachment?

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by vexed87 »

Encroachment is perceived to be primarily violent. From a moral viewpoint, to me it would be acceptable in some circumstances, however I would argue that to do it ethically, that no damage to property must be committed, only enhancement. i.e. turning waste scrub land with barren soils into a permaculture inspired forest garden. Of course, in the real world, damage is percieved differently by different people. Some people prefer ecological deserts on their doorstep. My point was that all land is not used to its full potential, so there's scope for redistributing its use more fairly, yet in a mutually beneficial manner. Moral parameters would need to be fine tuned to localised circumstances.

Libertarians usually abhor waste and levity, and would not stand idly by in ivory towers with moats, and vast lawned gardens, whilst children starve outside the estates gate for lack of resources. A life, like a mind, is a terrible thing to waste. I would not defend private property to the bitter end, there must be a degree of pragmatism, and any arrangement doesn't have to be motivated by charity (although I would hope to some extent, there would be some!) Cooperation is inherently mutually beneficial.

I think one of the biggest revelations in my journey of learning about libertarianism is that one of the greatest challenges of society today is that many humans have forgotten the importance of reciprocity and mutual respect. We place too much faith in the free market. We are all dependant on each other because behind the façade of the free market, it is simply humans, working with other humans to produce things for mutual benefit.

Therefore, like any other resource, land should be utilised in a manner that avoids waste. I posit there is more than enough to go around, and there's a great deal of growth possible in terms of finding and making use of productive land, just not in the manner we are accustomed to.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

Jean wrote:This is not a hostile topic about libertarianism, I myself use it as my main guideline for personal ethic, but after several year, I cannot get over to questions and found no one who did.

A few years ago, I read "Man, Economy and State", because it was on jacob's book list.
I really enjoyed it, and found all the logical development brillant and unquestionables.
What did you think of the assumptions on page 2 of that book, which are fundamental and underlie the entire thing?

Specifically, do you agree or disagree that we should take Aristotle's conception of man (note 3) and praxeology as immutable axioms upon which we build everything else, including but not limited to economics?

I ask this because most people I know who claim to be followers of Rothbard, von MIses, etc., do not even seem to know what praxeology is, let alone be able to defend it, and it makes me wonder how and why they would believe in something that is merely a derivative of it.

I agree that property, like money, is a convenient and useful human invention (legal tool) that helps us order society. But there is nothing magical -- either holy or unholy -- about it per se.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Ego »

Dragline wrote:I ask this because most people I know who claim to be followers of Rothbard, von MIses, etc., do not even seem to know what praxeology is, let alone be able to defend it, and it makes me wonder how and why they would believe in something that is merely a derivative of it.
I'm not a follower fo those fellows so it may not be surprising that I had to go and look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Jean »

I wouldn't call myself a follower, but I think those axioms are reasonable.
But what I think, is that we can create a society based on libertarianism, only if land is unlimited.
Now that we see it isn't, can we fix the whole logic, or is there an artefact that would fix it?
A basic inconditional income would do it, but how to finance it rightfully?
Or how to avoid the society to clash between owner and non owner?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Riggerjack »

So, your problem with libertarian thinking is:
Without access to homesteading land, man has no choice but violence?
Did I miss something there?

I'm pretty familiar with libertarian thinking, and the issue I have is high cost, low proft behavior, like pollution. I've never seen a libertarian approach that could work to control pollution.

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone decide that homesteading or violence was a binary decision. Although, that does help explain why cities are so violent, it's those millions of suppressed homesteaders. :twisted:

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Dragline »

Mobs with pitchforks! :lol:

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Jean »

@Riggerjack
Kindof: If there is no access to homesteading, someones existence can objectively be a pure loss for you.

Pollution is an easy one in my opinion, realeasing anything unwanted outside of you property is an aggression an should be treated as such by the aggressed.

Solvent
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:04 pm
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Contact:

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Solvent »

The question of initial appropriation is highly problematic for many strains of libertarian thought. I don't know that a 'solution' exists as OP seems to ask, although people definitely have preferences.

Although I'm sympathetic to many kinds of libertarian thinking, I think the fundamental philosophical basis of much modern libertarian thinking is on very shaky ground. Logically speaking. I recommend Matt Bruenig's writings on the subject, for example this one on John Locke's musings on property. His writing is highly combative (not so much in that article), but I think his reasoning is strong.

I'm really tired, so I doubt I'll express myself well. But what I've come to realise is that, unlike many internet libertarians seem to believe (and I kinda used to be one of them), there is no sensible way to determine property rights from some kind of natural first principles in the absence of a social structure. That is, property rights are something determined within society, and subject to society's needs. You can argue for a particular definition that fits your worldview, but the libertarian's version of strong property rights is not more logically sound than many other, different, versions, and they're certainly not more just.

This on use of force is also interesting, and here is a fun little thought experiment on easements. Even freely agreed trades can be brought into question.

Solvent
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:04 pm
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Contact:

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Solvent »

Jean wrote:A basic inconditional income would do it, but how to finance it rightfully?
As per Thomas Paine, tax land. No-one 'created' it (bar those islands in the South China Sea, or Singapore's expansion, etc. Although, you know, they're buying that land from somewhere else, after a fashion).

To link to my post immediately prior, Bruenig also wrote on this (see last two paras). Happily, my personal conclusions on that matter predate that article (following largely from Paine) but he expresses them succinctly.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Flaws in libertarianism

Post by Jean »

Thank you!
Even if I hate being comfirmed in what I already think.

Locked