tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post5591332448606764077..comments2024-03-28T12:23:39.665+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: A question of justiceFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-16486935074617862552013-10-15T04:30:43.932+01:002013-10-15T04:30:43.932+01:00Yes some of the claims for property rights are ex...Yes some of the claims for property rights are extraordinary. The Russian case is a good example of the Law of the jungle. Resulting in people bathing in champagne.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769952853595228563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-84471142918254751402013-10-15T04:18:56.051+01:002013-10-15T04:18:56.051+01:00Is that not also Feudalism? So Libertarians are pe...Is that not also Feudalism? So Libertarians are people who like Robber Barons. Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769952853595228563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-53159455700222789222013-10-09T18:19:14.156+01:002013-10-09T18:19:14.156+01:00Good post Frances.
Locke at times used the word &...Good post Frances.<br /><br />Locke at times used the word "property" both for material possessions and in a wider sense to include everything particular to a person. That was natural for him, because the meaning of the word was changing in the 17th century. Modern libertarians are free, if they wish, to use a jargon in which "property" includes one's own body. But using one word for two concepts does not make them the same thing, and arguments about bodily integrity do not logically cover accumulated possessions.<br /><br />I agree with Locke that one should have a right to the fruits of one's labour, subject to taxation by democratic consent. But I cannot see how this gives Charles Windsor a right to the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, or Roman Abramovich a right to billions in Russian mineral wealth, or Warner Music a right to collect royalties from anyone singing "Happy Birthday" on YouTube.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />PaulBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16861432701458977844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-69350617644467413382013-10-09T13:31:56.328+01:002013-10-09T13:31:56.328+01:00Richard,
Why do right-wing Libertarians try to ju...Richard,<br /><br />Why do right-wing Libertarians try to justify property rights on the basis of an imaginary original 'homesteading', when in reality property ownership isn't actually derived from this? Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-57115228619163066692013-10-09T13:20:13.562+01:002013-10-09T13:20:13.562+01:00Ha. We're really not disagreeing at all. My wh...Ha. We're really not disagreeing at all. My whole point is that property rights are a social construct.Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-15626957057085644032013-10-09T13:08:17.871+01:002013-10-09T13:08:17.871+01:00I agree with you that the right to property must b...I agree with you that the right to property must be a social construct - as I said what else could it be - as soon as someone describes why something is theirs they are appealing to some socially recognized logic and the you have it.<br />Or are you making a different pointDinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-50947896382043145312013-10-09T11:52:50.011+01:002013-10-09T11:52:50.011+01:00Dinero,
Artists's chalks are not "chalk&...Dinero,<br /><br />Artists's chalks are not "chalk". They are manufactured from gypsum and various dyes. <br /><br />The act of finding does not automatically create a right to ownership. Actually, neither does the act of production. Law must exist to confer those rights - and in my view it has to be enforceable, too: law that isn't enforceable isn't really law. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-20636475065831419882013-10-09T11:23:22.175+01:002013-10-09T11:23:22.175+01:00Rights are whatever has enough support from enough...Rights are whatever has enough support from enough people that they will protect them for everyone so they may benefit from them too. Clear, logical, sensible, rational, symetrical.<br /><br />A basis for citizens rights - http://free-english-people.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-uk-from-first-principles-1.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10605617930455114746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-34892764519293769682013-10-09T10:59:45.470+01:002013-10-09T10:59:45.470+01:00Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that Frances was...Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that Frances was writing <i>against property rights</i> - against ideas of property rights as natural or foundational, I should have said.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009879034507926661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-70614873316762808592013-10-09T10:57:52.324+01:002013-10-09T10:57:52.324+01:00Which, I think, takes us to the heart of Frances&#...Which, I think, takes us to the heart of Frances's argument against property rights: in this case there is not <b>and cannot be</b> any just distribution. We don't even know what a just distribution of property would look like - "to each according to their needs" would be a start, but then, how would different levels of need (above the bare minimum) be compared?<br /><br />The law on property (and a number of other things, contract not least) is a delicate, precise, self-consistent and self-correcting mechanism for producing justice, sitting on foundations which have injustice written right through them. Unfortunately we don't have any better foundations.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009879034507926661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-51820607361406122472013-10-09T09:29:53.775+01:002013-10-09T09:29:53.775+01:00Actually in Kent for example , pieces of chalk can...Actually in Kent for example , pieces of chalk can readily be picked of the ground.<br /><br />I don't see how anyone could claim there was some kind of "Natural" property right over and above something that was arrived at by earning some culturally acknowledged just claim by the act of finding or some other activity. <br /><br />Without some particular action to differentiate the thing in question from all other things the "natural right" would apply to all and everything in creation.<br /><br />What could a natural unearned property right even mean if it did not involve some action which itself would then amount to the basis of a just claim<br /><br />Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-24583510672484093942013-10-09T09:27:08.129+01:002013-10-09T09:27:08.129+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-9941174730432339012013-10-09T08:56:10.749+01:002013-10-09T08:56:10.749+01:00Dinero,
No-one, absolutely no-one, holds somethin...Dinero,<br /><br />No-one, absolutely no-one, holds something that they have created entirely by their own efforts using resources to which no-one else has any claim. <br /><br />Consider a pavement artist - the famous "chalk drawings". The artist draws a picture on the pavement in chalk, places his cap in front of the picture with a sign saying "All my own work", and waits for people to throw money in his cap. Does he have any right to expect payment for his work? No. Does he own the pavement on which he has drawn the picture? No. Indeed the reason for using chalk is that the picture will wash away in the rain, so it is not permanent defacement of public property. Does he own the chalks he used to draw the picture? Presumably, if he bought them - but he didn't make them. They were made by the manufacturers of chalks using the resources of the earth (gypsum and dyes). So to say the picture is entirely his own effort denies the efforts of those who extracted and created the resources he used to make the picture, and to say he has exclusive ownership of the picture is to deny the claims of others to a share of the pavement on which it is drawn. Indeed drawing the picture at all denies the right of others to walk on that piece of pavement, and demanding money to see the picture is claiming exclusive rights to something that is on common land. <br /><br />Ultimately everything is produced using resources to which others have a claim. There is no such thing as exclusive ownership. Claiming exclusive ownership always involves denying rights to others. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-65280023898473020202013-10-09T08:42:34.360+01:002013-10-09T08:42:34.360+01:00Derek,
You have not understood what I wrote. I di...Derek,<br /><br />You have not understood what I wrote. I did not suggest that the law of the jungle was representative of libertarianism. I said that the libertarian notion that there is natural "right" to property is fundamentally wrong. "Property rights" only exist because some system of law created by people says they do. <br /><br />Homesteading presupposes that there is "unowned land" for the taking. But there is no such thing. Land that is not "enclosed" (in private ownership) is available for common use. By homesteading you deprive others of their right to use that land, both now and in the future. Homesteading by definition is seizure of property from others by force. <br /><br />You may have chuckled, but you did not read what I said properly. I said government CREATES property rights, it does not "protect" rights that already exist, The only property rights absent a system of law are the right to take what you can and to hold what you can defend. Law is created by government, therefore property rights as you would like them to be require there to be some form of government.<br /><br />You may like to believe that there is some kind of transcendent "moral code" that exists whether or not there is a system of law, but that frankly is a religious belief. It has nothing to do with reality. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-18079334141579776302013-10-09T08:33:28.763+01:002013-10-09T08:33:28.763+01:00> Frances
If someone is holding something tha...> Frances<br /><br /> If someone is holding something that they have made by their own hand - what is your position on their ownership of it.Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-77700528707619597692013-10-09T08:23:27.024+01:002013-10-09T08:23:27.024+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-38334955777877664292013-10-09T03:26:05.376+01:002013-10-09T03:26:05.376+01:00Frances, you are right that the "law of the j...Frances, you are right that the "law of the jungle" is absurd, but you are wrong to imply that it is in anyway representative of libertarianism. This type of violent action, to use force to take someone else's property, is a clear cut violation of their property rights. <br /><br />You also don't understand the homesteading argument. Homesteading would argue that indigenous people were already making productive use of the land (i.e. mixing unused land with their labor) and therefore it is wrong to take it from them. Homesteading would protect their land, not allow people to take it away from them.<br /><br />I also chuckled reading the number of times you mentioned government "protecting" property rights. There are many libertarians who want government to have absolutely nothing to do with "protecting" property rights or anything else for that matter. The rule of law should protect property rights and the best rule of law would not be one monopolized by the state.<br /><br />I appreciate your attempt to engage libertarians, but your representation of libertarianism is simply not accurate.Derek Tharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506795458670993132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-40804691045624105952013-10-08T19:54:12.548+01:002013-10-08T19:54:12.548+01:00Sadly no. At its most basic, labour is a free reso...Sadly no. At its most basic, labour is a free resource, not a scarce one. There is absolutely no intrinsic law that says you have to be rewarded for your work. If you choose to gather something that is a free resource, and you leave that pile of gathered free resources unattended and someone takes from it, they have not stolen from you: you have no more title to those resources than them. The fact that you put the effort in to gather the free resources does not create a property entitlement. The resources are still free.<br /><br />I have acknowledged repeatedly what a libertarian means by property, and repeatedly argued that the definition is wrong.<br /><br />Since you are a believer in property rights, perhaps you will now respect my right as the owner of this site to end this conversation. Your right to free speech is trumped by my right not to publish your remarks. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-91966358496495127642013-10-08T19:48:23.985+01:002013-10-08T19:48:23.985+01:00"On common land, firewood is a free resource&..."On common land, firewood is a free resource"<br /><br />Yes, but to gather it requires labour, and labour is a scarce resource, and as soon as it has been gathered it belongs to the gatherer, and if someone tries to take it from the gatherer by force, they commit a crime.<br /><br />I don't think you have repeatedly acknowledged what a libertarian means by property. What you have done is stated that it is an illogical position, and denied libertarians distinguish between alienable property and inalienable property, the latter which you would probably cover by reference to life and liberty.Richard Careyhttp://libertarianhome.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-53135122436188126032013-10-08T19:34:09.841+01:002013-10-08T19:34:09.841+01:00Oh, and I have acknowledged repeatedly what a libe...Oh, and I have acknowledged repeatedly what a libertarian means by property. I've explained several times now why I think the libertarian definition of "property" is wrong. That is a refutation of it. <br /><br />I agree that this debate is going around in circles. Therefore it is now ended. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-86965687973464456782013-10-08T19:30:10.691+01:002013-10-08T19:30:10.691+01:00On common land, firewood is a free resource, so ar...On common land, firewood is a free resource, so are branches and leaves to make a shelter, rabbits to kill for food and their skins for clothes. Only if the land is enclosed (i.e. seized by an individual for their exclusive use, thereby denying others the right to use the resources produced by that land) are these property - and it wouldn't be mine. Your argument has no basis.Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-49074504470583257242013-10-08T19:23:16.565+01:002013-10-08T19:23:16.565+01:00Frances, you persist in a refusal to acknowledge w...Frances, you persist in a refusal to acknowledge what a libertarian means by 'property'. Whether you reject the libertarian view or not, you cannot refute it simply by using a different definition of its core terms. As such, arguing is just going round in circles<br /><br />" I don't have to own anything at all to be alive and free."<br /><br />Really? You think you'll last long with no clothes, no food, no shelter and no heat? Go on. Tell me how clothes, food, shelter and fuel for a fire don't count as property.Richard Careyhttp://libertarianhome.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-20745319016058930332013-10-08T18:42:00.799+01:002013-10-08T18:42:00.799+01:00I do say that to you. You may defend the right of ...I do say that to you. You may defend the right of those being killed to be left in peace, but that doesn't mean you regard them as people. The way you spoke of the "underprivileged" in your comment on Bruening's post gave the impression that they had no rights other than those magnanimously granted to them by the people who own property. <br /><br />The right to life and the right to liberty are in themselves sufficient to make what the Spanish were doing wrong. Redefining these as "property rights" is unnecessary.<br /><br />Property rights and the right to life and liberty are demonstrably not the same thing. If I am stripped of everything I have, I am still alive and I am still free. I don't have to own anything at all to be alive and free. You seem very confused about the distinction between property and liberty: being placed in a 3 x 3 cage is a clear denial of liberty. <br /><br />I did not get that impression from Bruening's post. I do, however, get the impression from your comments that you regard people who have nothing as somehow inferior. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-60239903490079817452013-10-08T18:14:21.627+01:002013-10-08T18:14:21.627+01:00The way you describe the underprivileged and the p...<i>The way you describe the underprivileged and the people of other cultures and classes in this paragraph makes them sound as if they are not really people at all.</i><br /><br />You say this to me when I was defending the right of the victims of violence in this painting to be left in peace as a natural right?<br /><br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/8525140770/<br /><br />Further, unless the people in the painting have a right to their land, homes, clothes, food and bodies, there is nothing to stop the Spanish from doing what they did. Property rights are coextensive with human living. Otherwise, one can be forcibly placed naked in a 3 x 3 cage and be declared "free". You can do whatever you want to do. Just do it without any property.<br /><br />Further, the implication from Bruening was that by being meticulous in protecting the property and bodies of even the most powerless, libertarians either had a secret plan or are primarily motivated to kill or drive poor people into the sea.<br /><br /> Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-64368737718258662792013-10-08T18:11:56.397+01:002013-10-08T18:11:56.397+01:00You have not read my remarks properly.
I did not...You have not read my remarks properly. <br /><br />I did not say "libertarians are irrational". I said that I thought the conflation of property rights with personal rights was irrational. That is a critique of a libertarian argument, not a statement about libertarians. It is not an "ad hominem" attack. <br /><br />2) I am certainly not suggesting that libertarians can't tell the difference between vandalism and murder. Once again you assume a personal attribution where there is none intended. I was drawing a distinction between the person themselves and the things owned by that person - a distinction you ignore.<br /><br />If someone drugged me and removed a kidney, I would indeed think a wrong had been done to me. But that does not mean I regard my kidney as "my property". It is a part of me, and if it is removed by force without my consent then it is my liberty that has been violated. Furthermore, if the means by which it is removed results in my death, then my right to life has also been violated. I don't need to start redefining my fundamental human rights to "life and liberty" as "property rights" in order to understand that this is a considerable wrong. <br /><br />The right to property has nothing to do with life and liberty. I may not own a bean, but I still have the right to live and the right to choose how I will live. <br /><br />Your apple example is flawed. You do not have any "property rights" over wildling apples picked from common land. They are free resources that you may use. You don't own them, and others have as much right to them as you do. You don't own the air that you breathe, either, but your right to life gives you the right to breathe it. <br /><br />The question of abundance is relevant to the existence of property rights even though we don't (yet) have an abundance of everything. If everyone who wanted a car could have one, cars would be free. And as I've already said in relation to apples and air, you don't own free resources. The entire concept of ownership hangs on there being value in property. If there is not, ownership is meaningless. Therefore, as I said, property "rights" depend on there being scarcity, which by definition means that some people are denied those rights. <br /><br />It was you who suggested that libertarians were not guilty of hypocrisy whereas others are. I merely pointed out that conflating personal and property rights is hypocrisy if it results in people who own nothing being treated as having fewer rights. People are of equal worth whether or not they own "things". <br /><br />Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.com