4 ms·

>Yes, but not all humans have a concept of 'property' the same as all other humans, nor do some humans have a concept of 'property' at all. And some human bein

by aminok 10y ago

>Yes, but not all humans have a concept of 'property' the same as all other humans, nor do some humans have a concept of 'property' at all. And some human beings don't have a concept of 'self-ownership' and think slavery is justified.

aninhumer 10y ago
Well as it happens, I don't base my objections to slavery primarily on a notion "self-ownership", but rather on simple consequentialism. Slavery tends to lead to abuse of the enslaved, and allows no recourse for those under it. And consequentialism also leads me to believe that defending property rights so far as to allow people to deny food to the starving, is not a good idea. (And to be honest, to me the libertarian notion of "self-ownership" feels like a reverse-reasoning epicycle to try and base everything on property rights. I'm not sure it even makes sense: Surely if you own yourself you should be allowed to sell yourself?)
- Balgair 10y ago
  Interesting side-point there. I've heard the argument from libertarians that communism is evil because then you don't own your body, the collective does. I've always found that to be just a strange argument to put forth (logic of the conclusions aside) and if the situation arises, then there are obviously much larger and more fundamental issues to deal with. Like, that issue of what you can or cannot do with your body in a society is one that all societies have and have always had, regardless of the 'system' in use. It's not logic that applies there, it is humans acting like humans (typically as dumb asshats), so trying to ham-horn in property laws to define communism as evil is silly. Dumb humans are the root cause.
- aminok 10y ago
  >but rather on simple consequentialism. Slavery tends to lead to abuse of the enslaved, and allows no recourse for those under it. So slavery would be okay if the people who were enslaved could be protected from abuse whilst enslaved? Think carefully about the implications of your philosophy. >And consequentialism also leads me to believe that defending property rights so far as to allow people to deny food to the starving, is not a good idea. You don't have a right to live by robbing others. Even if you don't care about the moral reasons for this, you must see how in the long run, a legal system that allows those with low resources to plunder those with high resources, deteriorates the incentives that sustain the economy, leading to far more death. >(And to be honest, to me the libertarian notion of "self-ownership" feels like a reverse-reasoning epicycle to try and base everything on property rights. If the term "self-ownership" rubs you the wrong way (because the concept of ownership has been stigmatized by socialist ideology), the libertarian notion could be reversed, and it would be equally valid. Unclaimed natural resources that are appropriated and turned into property become part of a person. They are us. So to violate someone's property is to violate their person. >I'm not sure it even makes sense: Surely if you own yourself you should be allowed to sell yourself?) I would argue you have no moral right to sell yourself into slavery, because the person you are five years from now is in some respects a different person, who no one else, even their past self, has a right to sell into slavery.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >So slavery would be okay if the people who were enslaved could be protected from abuse whilst enslaved? I think if some form of slavery could be proven to lead to better outcomes for all involved, it would be a good thing. I just don't think such a system is possible. >you must see how in the long run, a legal system that allows those with low resources to plunder those with high resources, deteriorates the incentives that sustain the economy, leading to far more death. Actually, what I see is that in societies with lower taxes, inequality increases slowly over time leading to inefficiency, poverty and crime. >I would argue you have no moral right to sell yourself into slavery, because the person you are five years from now is in some respects a different person, who no one else, even their past self, has a right to sell into slavery. Okay, that's a reasonable argument, but it still feels like an unnecessary contortion to me. Why not just say "slavery is bad because it denies individual freedom"? That seems far more like a position based in liberty. Whereas trying to base everything in property rights just feels like an exercise in oversimplification. (Or if I'm feeling excessively cynical, it feels like an attempt to intertwine property rights into the philosophy so deeply that they can't be argued with directly.)
    - aminok 10y ago
      >I think if some form of slavery could be proven to lead to better outcomes for all involved, it would be a good thing. I just don't think such a system is possible. What's a good outcome is subjective. For the slave, it cannot be better to be enslaved. For someone else, it may be very well be. That is why rights are important. Like I said, your moral framework is essentially sociopathic in its willingness to violate others rights. You're even willing to enslave others given the right circumstances. >Actually, what I see is that in societies with lower taxes, inequality increases slowly over time leading to inefficiency, poverty and crime. The US doesn't have lower taxes though. The countries that have the lowest taxes while still protecting private property rights have seen massive gains in wages and life expectancy over the last 60 years: Hong Kong and Singapore. The countries that have increasingly adopted social democracy have seen wage growth stagnate. Look at the US for example. The US has tried massively increasing social welfare spending since 1972: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/?_r=1 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-... Annual spending growth on various components of social welfare spending (1972 - 2011): >Pensions and retirement: 4.4% >Healthcare: 5.7% >Welfare: 4.1% Annual economic growth over the time frame: >2.7% The only thing it has to show for giving people more "free money" to spend is a higher trade deficit, stagnant wage growth, and, I would argue, an explosion in the amount of single parenthood: http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-fueling-family-poverty-in-maine/ http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-fu... The story has largely been the same in Europe, with the scale of forcible income redistribution growing, concurrent with increasing stagnation of wage growth. >Why not just say "slavery is bad because it denies individual freedom"? Because if the person is selling themselves into slavery, you have to ask how that is a denial of individual freedom. That is what I've attempted to answer. >That seems far more like a position based in liberty. Whereas trying to base everything in property rights just feels like an exercise in oversimplification. You cannot have a definition of liberty unless you define what people have a right to (their person and property).

by aminok 10y ago

aninhumer 10y ago

Well as it happens, I don't base my objections to slavery primarily on a notion "self-ownership", but rather on simple consequentialism. Slavery tends to lead to abuse of the enslaved, and allows no recourse for those under it. And consequentialism also leads me to believe that defending property rights so far as to allow people to deny food to the starving, is not a good idea. (And to be honest, to me the libertarian notion of "self-ownership" feels like a reverse-reasoning epicycle to try and base everything on property rights. I'm not sure it even makes sense: Surely if you own yourself you should be allowed to sell yourself?)

Balgair 10y ago
Interesting side-point there. I've heard the argument from libertarians that communism is evil because then you don't own your body, the collective does. I've always found that to be just a strange argument to put forth (logic of the conclusions aside) and if the situation arises, then there are obviously much larger and more fundamental issues to deal with. Like, that issue of what you can or cannot do with your body in a society is one that all societies have and have always had, regardless of the 'system' in use. It's not logic that applies there, it is humans acting like humans (typically as dumb asshats), so trying to ham-horn in property laws to define communism as evil is silly. Dumb humans are the root cause.
aminok 10y ago
>but rather on simple consequentialism. Slavery tends to lead to abuse of the enslaved, and allows no recourse for those under it. So slavery would be okay if the people who were enslaved could be protected from abuse whilst enslaved? Think carefully about the implications of your philosophy. >And consequentialism also leads me to believe that defending property rights so far as to allow people to deny food to the starving, is not a good idea. You don't have a right to live by robbing others. Even if you don't care about the moral reasons for this, you must see how in the long run, a legal system that allows those with low resources to plunder those with high resources, deteriorates the incentives that sustain the economy, leading to far more death. >(And to be honest, to me the libertarian notion of "self-ownership" feels like a reverse-reasoning epicycle to try and base everything on property rights. If the term "self-ownership" rubs you the wrong way (because the concept of ownership has been stigmatized by socialist ideology), the libertarian notion could be reversed, and it would be equally valid. Unclaimed natural resources that are appropriated and turned into property become part of a person. They are us. So to violate someone's property is to violate their person. >I'm not sure it even makes sense: Surely if you own yourself you should be allowed to sell yourself?) I would argue you have no moral right to sell yourself into slavery, because the person you are five years from now is in some respects a different person, who no one else, even their past self, has a right to sell into slavery.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >So slavery would be okay if the people who were enslaved could be protected from abuse whilst enslaved? I think if some form of slavery could be proven to lead to better outcomes for all involved, it would be a good thing. I just don't think such a system is possible. >you must see how in the long run, a legal system that allows those with low resources to plunder those with high resources, deteriorates the incentives that sustain the economy, leading to far more death. Actually, what I see is that in societies with lower taxes, inequality increases slowly over time leading to inefficiency, poverty and crime. >I would argue you have no moral right to sell yourself into slavery, because the person you are five years from now is in some respects a different person, who no one else, even their past self, has a right to sell into slavery. Okay, that's a reasonable argument, but it still feels like an unnecessary contortion to me. Why not just say "slavery is bad because it denies individual freedom"? That seems far more like a position based in liberty. Whereas trying to base everything in property rights just feels like an exercise in oversimplification. (Or if I'm feeling excessively cynical, it feels like an attempt to intertwine property rights into the philosophy so deeply that they can't be argued with directly.)
  - aminok 10y ago
    >I think if some form of slavery could be proven to lead to better outcomes for all involved, it would be a good thing. I just don't think such a system is possible. What's a good outcome is subjective. For the slave, it cannot be better to be enslaved. For someone else, it may be very well be. That is why rights are important. Like I said, your moral framework is essentially sociopathic in its willingness to violate others rights. You're even willing to enslave others given the right circumstances. >Actually, what I see is that in societies with lower taxes, inequality increases slowly over time leading to inefficiency, poverty and crime. The US doesn't have lower taxes though. The countries that have the lowest taxes while still protecting private property rights have seen massive gains in wages and life expectancy over the last 60 years: Hong Kong and Singapore. The countries that have increasingly adopted social democracy have seen wage growth stagnate. Look at the US for example. The US has tried massively increasing social welfare spending since 1972: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/?_r=1 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-... Annual spending growth on various components of social welfare spending (1972 - 2011): >Pensions and retirement: 4.4% >Healthcare: 5.7% >Welfare: 4.1% Annual economic growth over the time frame: >2.7% The only thing it has to show for giving people more "free money" to spend is a higher trade deficit, stagnant wage growth, and, I would argue, an explosion in the amount of single parenthood: http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-fueling-family-poverty-in-maine/ http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-fu... The story has largely been the same in Europe, with the scale of forcible income redistribution growing, concurrent with increasing stagnation of wage growth. >Why not just say "slavery is bad because it denies individual freedom"? Because if the person is selling themselves into slavery, you have to ask how that is a denial of individual freedom. That is what I've attempted to answer. >That seems far more like a position based in liberty. Whereas trying to base everything in property rights just feels like an exercise in oversimplification. You cannot have a definition of liberty unless you define what people have a right to (their person and property).