4 ms·

So I'm going to focus on one point here, because it's the one I find the most irrational about libertarian philosophy. >I disagree. The outcome of a society ac

So I'm going to focus on one point here, because it's the one I find the most irrational about libertarian philosophy. >I disagree. The outcome of a society accepting theft is bad, in and of itself. Theft is bad. So what exactly do you mean by "theft" in this context? Normally theft is defined in terms of the property system of the society it occurs within. Such property systems vary in the extent of control they allow individuals to exert over resources. Some involve limited time periods (copyright) while others require social contribution to maintain exclusive control (property taxes). So in order to call something "theft" even if society accepts it, you have to define a property system outside of society. And to say such theft is morally bad, you have to elevate this one property system to the level of morality. And this seems extremely dubious to me. We can say murder is intrinsically bad because life is evident in the universe, but there is no intrinsic notion of property in the universe. The only way I can consider one property system morally superior than another is to talk about outcomes, at which point we're making economic arguments, not moral ones.

aminok 10y ago
>Normally theft is defined in terms of the property system of the society it occurs within. As you said, let's not get hung up on semantics. It's taking property from someone that they are morally entitled to. If John gives me a widget, you have no moral right to take it from me without my consent because you happened to sign a piece of paper saying it's the law, and get Bob and Alice to add their signatures as well. Government does not have any rights that a group of people do not have. If it's wrong for a group of people to deprive you of your property, it's wrong for a government to do so as well. >We can say murder is intrinsically bad because life is evident in the universe, but there is no intrinsic notion of property in the universe. What about slavery? What about predation, or parasitism, where one animal lives off of the life of another? The predator/parasite robs the prey/host of their bodily resources. Property is absolutely evident. Every bit as evident as freedom/self-ownership. Animals will fight against attempts to prey/parasite off of their body, just as they'll fight against attempts to steal their kill. First Possession is a principle observed in animals to reduce conflict, and it is the basis of property rights. It is also found to lead to a stable equilibrium in game theory experiments.

aminok 10y ago

>Normally theft is defined in terms of the property system of the society it occurs within. As you said, let's not get hung up on semantics. It's taking property from someone that they are morally entitled to. If John gives me a widget, you have no moral right to take it from me without my consent because you happened to sign a piece of paper saying it's the law, and get Bob and Alice to add their signatures as well. Government does not have any rights that a group of people do not have. If it's wrong for a group of people to deprive you of your property, it's wrong for a government to do so as well. >We can say murder is intrinsically bad because life is evident in the universe, but there is no intrinsic notion of property in the universe. What about slavery? What about predation, or parasitism, where one animal lives off of the life of another? The predator/parasite robs the prey/host of their bodily resources. Property is absolutely evident. Every bit as evident as freedom/self-ownership. Animals will fight against attempts to prey/parasite off of their body, just as they'll fight against attempts to steal their kill. First Possession is a principle observed in animals to reduce conflict, and it is the basis of property rights. It is also found to lead to a stable equilibrium in game theory experiments.