Are property rights more important than life in a libertarian society?
A person's life is a just property of said person.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
wilderness: A person's life is a just property of said person.
Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see. Property in the sense of traits vs. property in the sense of a right to possession or control of a resource are obviously different things. A person's life is not their "property" in the sense of something to be alienated, bought, sold or given. In terms of traits, it's just a simple fact that they are "alive". And in terms of rights-concepts, "the right to life" is inalienable.
Non sequiter
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Brainpolice: wilderness: A person's life is a just property of said person. Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see. Property in the sense of traits vs. property in the sense of a right to possession or control of a resource are obviously different things. A person's life is not their "property" in the sense of something to be alienated, bought, sold or given. It's just a simple fact that they are "alive".
Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see. Property in the sense of traits vs. property in the sense of a right to possession or control of a resource are obviously different things. A person's life is not their "property" in the sense of something to be alienated, bought, sold or given. It's just a simple fact that they are "alive".
No, a cockroach is just alive. A Human owns his body and is alive.
Saan: Brainpolice: wilderness: A person's life is a just property of said person. Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see. Property in the sense of traits vs. property in the sense of a right to possession or control of a resource are obviously different things. A person's life is not their "property" in the sense of something to be alienated, bought, sold or given. It's just a simple fact that they are "alive". No, a cockroach is just alive. A Human owns his body and is alive.
Humans, nor any other being, do not "own" their body. Their body is the physical manifestation of what they are, inseparable from their will. But this is not "ownership", it's just a trait. Someone's "life" is not something they "own", it's a trait that they have.
Brainpolice: A person's life is not their "property"
A person's life is not their "property"
wrong. my life is my life.
wilderness: Brainpolice: A person's life is not their "property" wrong. my life is my life.
Bad use of semantics.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
laminustacitus: wilderness: wrong. my life is my life. Bad use of semantics.
wilderness: wrong. my life is my life.
nah.
Seeing that this thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll return to the original question:
alimentarius: Are property rights more important than life in a libertarian society?
It depends on who you talk to. No true libertarian argues for the need of government redistribution. HOWEVER, some libertarians (e.g. Rasmussen) argue that in extreme situations of societal breakdown, it is rational for individuals to break property rights, since property rights are ultimately based on individualism. I tend to agree with Rasmussen on this.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
I'm referrring to apparently the Late Scholastics, Grotius, Pufendort, Locke's, Rothbard's, and Hoppe's understanding (surely others too).
I bolded significants.
From "Ethics of Liberty":
"...one must still make use of scarce means at least one's physical body and its standing room, i.e., labor and land. Even before beginning any ethical deliberation then, in order to make them possible, private or exclusive property in bodies and a principle regarding the private or exclusive appropriation of standing room must already be presupposed."
As Aristotle and Aquinas points out in "On Interpretation" logically: "...for if he is a man he is not dead, because he is not an inanimate body; and if he is dead he is not a man, because as dead he is an inanimate body."
- (as bolded in "Ethics..." quote): bodies in reference to man (woman) are not dead - individuals are alive, animate. And such living bodies are "exclusive property" of said person.
As Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes in the Introduction to "Ethics of Liberty":
"Rothbard sought and found support for his contention regarding the possibility of a rational ethic and the reintegration of ethics and economics based on the notion of private property in the works of the late Scholastics and, in their footsteps, such "modern" natural-rights theorists as Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke. Building upon their work, in 'The Ethics of Liberty' Rothbard gives the following answer to the question of what I am justified doing here and now: every person owns his own physical body as well as all nature-given goods which he puts to use with the help of his body before anyone else does; this ownership implies his right to employ these resources as one sees fit so long as one does not thereby uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another's property or delimit another's control over it without his consent. In particular, once a good has been first appropriated or homesteaded by "mixing one's labor" with it (Locke's phase), then ownership of it can only be acquired by means of a voluntary (contractual) transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner. These rights are absolute."
- The whole idea of property that is alienable is based on the inalienable property in person. Without property in one's own self, then the whole idea of one's will mixing in one's labor and thus "all-nature given goods" falls flat on it's face without this. The free market is non-existent without the person owning his own will [aka liberty (free-will)] mixing with said goods.
So to answer the OP question more precisely - property and life (person) are inseparable and therefore neither are more important than the other - they are per se of the same thing (of the person's just possession). Thus why just alienable property if stolen by somebody without consent - is referred to as not the thief's property, which is also known as unjust property when in the thief's possession. A slave (person) is under the will of another person (master), and this is unjust property of the master to own a slave. A libertarian seeks liberty in ones own property of body and tangible property (a house, car, shovel, food, etc...).
Lysander Spooner: "mine and thine"
Brainpolice: Saan: Brainpolice: wilderness: A person's life is a just property of said person. Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see. Property in the sense of traits vs. property in the sense of a right to possession or control of a resource are obviously different things. A person's life is not their "property" in the sense of something to be alienated, bought, sold or given. It's just a simple fact that they are "alive". No, a cockroach is just alive. A Human owns his body and is alive. Humans, nor any other being, do not "own" their body. Their body is the physical manifestation of what they are, inseparable from their will. But this is not "ownership", it's just a trait. Someone's "life" is not something they "own", it's a trait that they have.
Then I own my will. My will is with me until I die, therefore I own my body and it's actions till I die.
The fact that you "own" your body in the metaphysical sense doesn't give you property rights over yourself or anything else. This "natural" ownership is important for distinguishing how far property rights go, but it is not proof of property rights. In order to prove the existence of property rights, you must prove the existence of natural rights, which in turn means you must prove the existence of natural law. This is not an easy task to do.
Rothbard's argument for natural law was:1. Any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.2. Man has a nature.3. Hence, man ought to act in accordance with his nature.
P1 of Rothbard's argument must be questioned since it seems unfounded: why must any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature?
This is where Rasmussen's comes in:1.Y is an object of choice.2.X is necessary for the existence of Y as a value." X makes Y's existence as a value possible.3.If P chooses (values) Y, P must choose (value) what is necessary for P's valuation of Y.4.P chooses (values) Y.5.Thus, P chooses (values) X.6.X is man's life qua man, man's natural end.7.Thus, P chooses (values) man's life qua man in choosing (valuing) Y.
Rasmussen argues that following your nature is necessary to ensure your existence, and that any action that counters your own existence is self-contradictory/immoral since your existence is a prerequisite for action. So from Rasmussen's argument we realize that it is necessary to act in your own nature in order to survive, which gives us reason to discover natural law, and then leads us to natural rights and property rights.
krazy kaju: The fact that you "own" your body in the metaphysical sense doesn't give you property rights over yourself or anything else.
The fact that you "own" your body in the metaphysical sense doesn't give you property rights over yourself or anything else.
It's axiomatic. I don't know what you mean. Nothing is necessarily "given" - it's earned by hard-work, if that's what you mean. It's given/inherent, but can be coerced by a want-ta-be master. Freedom needs to be exercised.
krazy kaju: This "natural" ownership is important for distinguishing how far property rights go, but it is not proof of property rights. In order to prove the existence of property rights, you must prove the existence of natural rights, which in turn means you must prove the existence of natural law. This is not an easy task to do. Rothbard's argument for natural law was:1. Any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.2. Man has a nature.3. Hence, man ought to act in accordance with his nature. P1 of Rothbard's argument must be questioned since it seems unfounded: why must any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature?
This "natural" ownership is important for distinguishing how far property rights go, but it is not proof of property rights. In order to prove the existence of property rights, you must prove the existence of natural rights, which in turn means you must prove the existence of natural law. This is not an easy task to do.
As a libertarian the goal is liberty in the exclusive property of life/body and just alienable goods.
krazy kaju: This is where Rasmussen's comes in: 1.Y is an object of choice.2.X is necessary for the existence of Y as a value." X makes Y's existence as a value possible.3.If P chooses (values) Y, P must choose (value) what is necessary for P's valuation of Y.4.P chooses (values) Y.5.Thus, P chooses (values) X.6.X is man's life qua man, man's natural end.7.Thus, P chooses (values) man's life qua man in choosing (valuing) Y. Rasmussen argues that following your nature is necessary to ensure your existence, and that any action that counters your own existence is self-contradictory/immoral since your existence is a prerequisite for action. So from Rasmussen's argument we realize that it is necessary to act in your own nature in order to survive, which gives us reason to discover natural law, and then leads us to natural rights and property rights.
This is where Rasmussen's comes in:
1.Y is an object of choice.2.X is necessary for the existence of Y as a value." X makes Y's existence as a value possible.3.If P chooses (values) Y, P must choose (value) what is necessary for P's valuation of Y.4.P chooses (values) Y.5.Thus, P chooses (values) X.6.X is man's life qua man, man's natural end.7.Thus, P chooses (values) man's life qua man in choosing (valuing) Y.
agreed
Brainpolice:Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see.
Brainpolice:Switching senses of the term "property" around again, I see. Property in the sense of traits vs. property in the sense of a right to possession or control of a resource are obviously different things. A person's life is not their "property" in the sense of something to be alienated, bought, sold or given. In terms of traits, it's just a simple fact that they are "alive". And in terms of rights-concepts, "the right to life" is inalienable.
I agree that there are certain aspects of my self that i cannot give or trade away, and it seems like that would contradict self ownership. However, rights in general, and ownership in particular, are not about what one can do, but rather about what one may do. We lazy Americans often blur the distiction, so rephrased, rights in general, and ownership in particular, are not about what one is able to do, but rather about what one is permitted to do. Also bear in mind that ownership is both legitimate exclusive control and also exclusive responsibility.
Keeping that in mind, I cannot sell or trade my self because it is impossible to do so. It's not that I may not; it's that I cannot. While I'm still living, I would still own my will and actions. It is impossible to physically give them up. However, self-ownership still follows the definitions - I have exclusive control of my self, and no one else has a legitimate claim on such control. I have full responsibility for the actions of my self, and no one else has a legitimate claim on these actions.
Further, I can certainly rent my self out, or even parts of myself, with stipulations on its/their use (stated or implied) in the contract. That's how I can legitimately become a prostitute. If you paid me to do unspeakable things to my rectum, I either owe you some butt fun or a refund. That certainly sounds like a rental to me. If I didn't own myself, it's possible I would not be permitted to rent out my stench trench or that someone else could legitimately rent it out without my permission.
I can also give away or sell parts of myself, which is how I can legitimately donate blood or a kidney. Were I not the owner of these body parts, I could not legitimately sell them or give them away, or worse, someone else could legitimately sell them or take them from me.
And of course, I can give away some or all of my self in my will, which is how I can legitimately donate my body to science, or donate the rest of my organs to those that may have a use for them, since I clearly do not.
krazy kaju: The fact that you "own" your body in the metaphysical sense doesn't give you property rights over yourself or anything else. This "natural" ownership is important for distinguishing how far property rights go, but it is not proof of property rights. In order to prove the existence of property rights, you must prove the existence of natural rights, which in turn means you must prove the existence of natural law. This is not an easy task to do. Rothbard's argument for natural law was:1. Any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature.2. Man has a nature.3. Hence, man ought to act in accordance with his nature. P1 of Rothbard's argument must be questioned since it seems unfounded: why must any being having a nature ought to act in accordance with its nature? This is where Rasmussen's comes in:1.Y is an object of choice.2.X is necessary for the existence of Y as a value." X makes Y's existence as a value possible.3.If P chooses (values) Y, P must choose (value) what is necessary for P's valuation of Y.4.P chooses (values) Y.5.Thus, P chooses (values) X.6.X is man's life qua man, man's natural end.7.Thus, P chooses (values) man's life qua man in choosing (valuing) Y. Rasmussen argues that following your nature is necessary to ensure your existence, and that any action that counters your own existence is self-contradictory/immoral since your existence is a prerequisite for action. So from Rasmussen's argument we realize that it is necessary to act in your own nature in order to survive, which gives us reason to discover natural law, and then leads us to natural rights and property rights.
I see you reposted this, but you haven't responded in the Natural Rights group where Lilburne and I both presented problems with this proof. To recap:
krazy kaju:"Metaphysically, life is . . . an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action." These words are absolutely crucial, for they show that living being is inherently value-laden.
By "life," does Rasmussen (via Rand) not mean simply "acting to stay alive"? If he means something else, what business does he have chugging along in in his essay without clarifying what he deems "absolutely crucial" words? (His later rendition - "man's life qua man" - is even vaguer.) Formal logical deduction, especially on such fine points, cannot possibly work unless terms are rigorously and unambiguously defined.
To which you replied:
krazy kaju:You're overanalyzing the text. By "life" Rasmussen simply means "life." It isn't that complicated. When he says "metaphysically, life is an end in itself," he means that one should act in such a way to promote one's own life.
Apparently he/you mean "survival." That's a term that is reasonably well-defined and we can work with. Agreed?
Anyway, bringing out Rasmussen's highly detailed analysis and then objecting to "overanalyzing" seems a bit odd. If Rasmussen has a case, he should have nothing to fear from insistence on clarity. In fact, my attempts at clarification should only make his case stronger - if he is indeed correct.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
I love my life and its only mine.....
---------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap