3 ms·

This whole thing is just a few chained together straw men. Libertarians do not say "people should keep their money because they worked hard for it." They say

by crikli 10y ago

This whole thing is just a few chained together straw men. Libertarians do not say "people should keep their money because they worked hard for it." They say that "people should keep their money." No qualifier. Libertarians are not "against force and for voluntarism." Libertarians are fully in favor of force, particularly when it comes to the defense of personal property. Some libertarians are in favor of voluntarYism (the y matters) but that's a totally different thing than whatever Bruenig trying to reference here. It's partisan screed that oversimplifies concepts and twists words to appeal to people who don't actually know enough about libertarians to spot the bullshit.

vintermann 10y ago
What counts as "defending" personal property, and what's using violence to take other people's stuff depends on which property claims you consider legitimate. This in turn depends on how you justify the property claims. Leaving out the qualifier is a cop-out. If you leave out the qualifier, what is the justification? Why is your claim on it any better than mine, or your government's? There are three possible answers to that: * Desert: It's mine because I deserve it, having worked hard for it. * Contractualism/Voluntarism/VoluntarYism or whatever you want to call it, the idea that the arrangement is fair because it was all voluntary from the involved parties. * Tradition: It's mine because however I got it, now I have it, and you can't take it from me. I call this the "facts on the ground" argument. It's not really a moral argument, so if you take this approach you can't morally condemn people who challenge the status quo (want to take it from you). If you leave out a justification for property claims, you're really here by default. These three answers are not compatible, for reasons explained at length. It's not bullshit, because it's a clear argument that I can follow. Whether it applies to "real" libertarians is another matter - as far as I can see it does, though.

by crikli 10y ago

vintermann 10y ago

What counts as "defending" personal property, and what's using violence to take other people's stuff depends on which property claims you consider legitimate. This in turn depends on how you justify the property claims. Leaving out the qualifier is a cop-out. If you leave out the qualifier, what is the justification? Why is your claim on it any better than mine, or your government's? There are three possible answers to that: * Desert: It's mine because I deserve it, having worked hard for it. * Contractualism/Voluntarism/VoluntarYism or whatever you want to call it, the idea that the arrangement is fair because it was all voluntary from the involved parties. * Tradition: It's mine because however I got it, now I have it, and you can't take it from me. I call this the "facts on the ground" argument. It's not really a moral argument, so if you take this approach you can't morally condemn people who challenge the status quo (want to take it from you). If you leave out a justification for property claims, you're really here by default. These three answers are not compatible, for reasons explained at length. It's not bullshit, because it's a clear argument that I can follow. Whether it applies to "real" libertarians is another matter - as far as I can see it does, though.