CDZ Libertarian Error: Locke And The Natural Right To Property

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by skews13, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,958
    Thanks Received:
    996
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,556
    ??? Who, other than you, was talking about anarchy? What point is there to introducing anything have to do with anarchy when the discussion topic is libertarianism rather than a comparison of libertarianism with anarchy? Nobody who knows what they are talking confuses libertarianism with anarchy.



    That's not a given. What is a given is that under totalitarianism, the individual or group holding power dictates the nature and extent to which individuals and entities are permitted to innovate and be creative, and the power wielders dictate who among the ruled is permitted to be innovative/creative. An adequately adept absolute and benevolent dictatorship (absolute monarchy) is a vastly more productive, efficient and beneficial system than are all the rest. Such a model suffers not from it's not being unable to produce great prosperity for the society, but rather in finding and emplacing in power an individual (or group thereof) who is both adequately adept and benevolent.

    Be that as it may, libertarianism's laissez faire approach to governance and economics brokers practically little mitigation of human nature, which is the problem with libertarianism (see also: Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)). To wit, avarice is intrinsic to human nature, yet libertarianism suffers little mitigation of it, declaring as paramount one's right property and subordinating the society to the individual.

    Put another way, libertarianism would allow a million people in a given libertarian polity to starve or freeze in the cold before it insisted that the 200,000 people, in that same polity and having more than adequate resources, share some of them to prevent those million folks dying of hunger/exposure. Libertarianism is essentially social and economic Darwinism "on steroids."
     
  2. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    The libertarianism of the Founders wasn't uniform, nor would how they perceived and implemented 'freedom' be even remotely popular with modern Libertarians, and without govt. regulation and protections 'free' markets' can't exist in the first place.

    With the Founders, you have the Hamiltonian Federalists, who believed in establishing aristocratic classes and that total corruption was the only viable type of govt., and the Jeffersonians, far more influenced by Bolingbrokism than Locke, despite all the name-dropping sophistry they indulged in on all sides when political expediency called for it, especially Jefferson.. Jefferson's voter base was the evangelicals from the First and Second Great Awakenings, for instance, and neither wing outside of Hamilton's faction of the Federalists favored 'free and unrestricted' businesses and centralized wealth dominating the country. They most certainly would have hated their views on heavy restrictions of the privilege of 'unlimited liability' and state control of business practices. Jefferson wanted the U.S. capital out of New York City precisely because he recognized the hazards of it being in such a corrupt city and the influences of centralized wealth.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  3. SeaGal
    Offline

    SeaGal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    619
    Thanks Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    a land remembered
    Ratings:
    +570
    Read what I wrote - and dispute that. :) 'We' is a reference to 'our society' today - nowhere did I claim the framers were libertarians, uniform or not. 'More, than' indicates a comparative. Tho' I believe that they envisioned a society that puts a high value on personal property and liberty...but not one free of gov't regulation and protections...another claim I have not made.

    I am disputing the authors claim re the fatal flaw in libertarian thinking...not to make a case that the founders were libertarian anarchists.
     
  4. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    I never said you were making such a case, and the 'Founders' were not more libertarian than the modern libertarians; their 'libertarianism' wouldn't fly with today's libertarians. They didn't have a problem with states having established religions, for instance; the last state legislature to disestablish its state religion was Massachusetts, in 1833 or so; they all did so gradually, as the demographics of their states changed. Most corporations had to lobby the state govt. for charters to allow them to form as well, and almost none got the benefits of 'limited liability' unless they were a business that did something that benefited most of the state, like railroads having to be public carriers, or canal and road companies, for another example; such a benefit wasn't handed out to just any idiot with a couple hundred bucks, as it is today. New Jersey required the Camden and Amboy share ownership with the state before they would grant it eminent domain status, and take on operation of the Delaware canal as well, the state took a 20% share of it. The latter example is how it should generally work in all cases of limited liability, actually, and with patents protection and other types of state bennies and business subsidies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  5. SeaGal
    Offline

    SeaGal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    619
    Thanks Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    a land remembered
    Ratings:
    +570
    I appreciate your thoughtful and informative post.

    However...
    nor did I claim they were.
     
  6. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Post #8 ...The Founders of this nation were certainly more libertarian than we are now. ... which is what I was addressing. They weren't.
     
  7. SeaGal
    Offline

    SeaGal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    619
    Thanks Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    a land remembered
    Ratings:
    +570
    Okay - one more attempt. By 'we', I'm not speaking for the Libertarian Party. I'm not a Libertarian. I'm speaking of the current state of policies affecting 'We the People'.

    Do you believe that the framers of the Constitution would have approved the Patriot Act...Obamacare...the current welfare system...interventionism in world affairs...or did their ideology follow more closely with the below? Generally speaking.

    STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES


    We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.


    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

    Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    39,052
    Thanks Received:
    6,223
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +20,715
    The open exchange of goods, services and the LIBERTY to retain your earnings -- is what channels greed into useful COOPERATIVE social contracts. Greed in itself is not a bad thing. As in entrepreneurs who want to KNOCK OFF and recycle the rigimortus of OLD lazy established businesses who are no longer serving or respecting their customers. And you can't "help others" from a position of economic failure or weakness. Can't even help your own family if you don't HAVE Economic Liberty.

    In comparison, when all those "market contractuals" become EDICTS -- managed only by POLITICAL power -- THEN a purer, more naked kind of greed is evoked. A form not BASED on dedication, vision, problem solving, but on pandering and "fairness".
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    39,052
    Thanks Received:
    6,223
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +20,715
    Humans that implement civil law institutions do. And Libertarians are BIG FANS of using that system to assert the sovereignty of property... RATHER than relying on the sketchy performance of govt bureaucracy to oversee or manage the markets. Those minions are always YEARS late and far short of doing any effective job at LEGISLATING market/property issues.

    Also people raised morally and ethically have far less problems with respecting property rights.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,958
    Thanks Received:
    996
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,556

Share This Page