For frankksj -or- A Dilemma for Libertarianism
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2014, 02:56 AM
For frankksj -or- A Dilemma for Libertarianism
We can see you lurking frankksj. Dodgy

Last Post: 21-05-2014, 02:34 PM

Where you said "This is getting nowhere, so this is my last post."

Last Visit: 02-06-2014 12:10 AM

One of these things is not like the other...

Anyways, amid all of his bullshit ramblings on personal liberty, he seems to have missed a gigantic hole in his logic. There is nothing that guarantees you get a Libertarian state as a logical consequence of Libertarian principals. You can just as easily get to a hereditary monarchy following Libertarian principals of property rights and liberty as you could possible get a decentralized anarcho-capitalist society (and I'd argue that the monarchy, by virtue of the many examples in history alone, is a far more likely outcome).

The paper is called 'A Dilemma for Libertarianism' written by Karl Widerquist. It essentially points out how the principals of right-Libertarians (which near as I can tell frankksj fell into this category with his fellating of Locke) are at odds with their professed goals.

In case you don't want to read the whole thing (it's not that much, took me less than half an hour), here's the conclusion from the paper.

5. Conclusion

The libertarian dilemma is clear. Do they remain committed to the principles of property rights and drop their commitment to the libertarian state or do they maintain their commitment to the libertarian state and drop or amend their principles of property rights? Libertarian principles of property ownership—original acquisition, voluntary transfer, rectification, and statute of limitations—give no support for objections to government taxation or regulation of property if they are applied consistently. If they imply anything at all, it is respect for whatever entity controls the power to tax and regulate property, whether this government is a small or large democracy or even a monarchy.

The dilemma for libertarians presented in this paper is fundamental. If the arguments here are correct two of the core principles of the ideology are in direct conflict with each other. Libertarianism has no principled argument successfully demonstrating that liberty requires the establishment of a so-called libertarian state.

If libertarians choose to maintain their commitment to the libertarian state, they must do so at the expense of liberty as they have always defined it. If libertarians chose to maintain their commitment to the principles of property rights, they have created an argument for property rights so strong that it cannot function as an argument for private property rights. Thus, libertarianism is not classical liberalism, but a form of royalist conservatism. However, if you are a libertarian who chooses this option, it gives you some reason to rejoice. You might have believed that a system based on libertarian principles could not be established without a long political struggle. But actually, you already live in a state fully consistent with libertarian principles. You might have believed that you had property rights that were constantly being interfered with by government. But actually, your property rights have always been free from interference; you simply have fewer property rights than you thought. You might have told the poor that it is not important what property rights a person has but whether those property rights are free from interference. And actually, although you are poorer than you might have thought, your property rights are fully free from interference. Congratulations.

If the arguments presented here are correct, both supporters and critics of libertarianism have erred in understanding the nature of the rights they are arguing over. Libertarians have factual erred in calculating who owns property. Critics have strategically erred by arguing—contrary to libertarian freedom—that citizens through their governments have the right to tax property because they have some natural right to hold property collectively. Instead, they could argue—consistently with libertarian freedom—that citizens through their governments have the right to tax property simply because they inherited that right from their ancestors.

Those rights are inviolable libertarian individual rights that can only be transferred with the voluntary consent of the current holders. If you are a libertarian who is committed to the libertarian principles of justice in property ownership, you have to follow those principles wherever they lead.

But should we follow these principles? This article has shown that libertarian principles give individuals very little protections for propertyless individuals, and that it is possible for all but one of us to be propertyless. The libertarian version of property rights is much more pleasant if one identifies with the holder of property rights than if one identifies with persons without property rights. If the libertarian principles of property ownership imply respect for a government as oppressive as the property-owning monarchy in this story, there must be doubt whether they capture what it means to be free. If we want greater protection for individual liberty, we will have to look for principles outside of libertarianism.

You can get the full paper HERE (it is a link to download the report as a DOC file, but I can repost the entire paper on request if you'd like).

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: