On another forum, someone presented a critique of libertarianism. It seems pretty off the wall, but I can't find a way to verbally express the error. Help me out here.
Sorry, this is a long article. Feel free to skim to the relevant parts.
https://member.apaonline.org/V82_2_kantianproject.aspx
Now, in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires, consider a conflict situation between the rich and the poor. In this conflict situation, the rich, of course, have more than enough resources to satisfy their basic needs.[55] In contrast, imagine that the poor lack the resources to meet their basic needs to secure a decent life for themselves even though they have tried all the means available to them that libertarians regard as legitimate for acquiring such resources. Under circumstances like these, libertarians maintain that the rich should have the liberty to use their resources to satisfy their luxury needs if they so wish. Libertarians recognize that this liberty might well be enjoyed with the consequence that the satisfaction of the basic needs of the poor will not be met; they just think that liberty always has priority over other political ideals, and since they assume that the liberty of the poor is not at stake in such conflict situations, it is easy for them to conclude that the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty so that the basic needs of the poor may be met.Of course, libertarians allow that it would be nice of the rich to share their surplus resources with the poor. Nevertheless, according to libertarians, such acts of charity are not required because the liberty of the poor is not thought to be at stake in such conflict situations.In fact, however, the liberty of the poor is at stake in such conflict situations. What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.Needless to say, libertarians want to deny that the poor have this liberty. But how can they justify such a denial? As this liberty of the poor has been specified, it is not a positive liberty to receive something but a negative liberty of noninterference. Clearly, what libertarians must do is recognize the existence of such a liberty and then claim that it unjustifiably conflicts with other liberties of the rich. But when libertarians see that this is the case, they are often genuinely surprised for they had not previously seen the conflict between the rich and the poor as a conflict of liberties. In responding to my work in recent years, libertarians Tibor Machan, Eric Mack, and Jan Narveson, among others, have come to grudgingly recognize that this liberty of the poor, as I have specified it, is indeed a negative liberty, but then they want to go on to argue that this liberty is illegitimate, or, at least, as Machan sees it, practically illegitimate.[56]Now when the conflict between the rich and the poor is viewed as a conflict of liberties, we can either say that the rich should have the liberty not to be interfered with in using their surplus resources for luxury purposes, or we can say that the poor should have the liberty not to be interfered with in taking from the rich what they require to meet their basic needs. If we choose one liberty, we must reject the other. What needs to be determined, therefore, is which liberty is morally enforceable: the liberty of the rich or the liberty of the poor.[57]
This is nonsense. He is saying that the poor have a right for the rich to not interfere with them taking his possessions. He literally says exactly that. He does not justify this claim at all, but instead just calls the poor's "right to steal" a negative right. Not only is this wrong, but he goes on to say that this is consistent with libertarian principles. However, he is clearly ignoring the libertarian view of property rights by saying that the rich do not have a right to their possessions.
I really don't understand how he can call it a negative right. He doesn't explain it at all. Obviously you can word anything to sound like a negative right "i have the right for you to not interfere with me killing you," but it must be grounded on the natural law/rights. The "right" to steal without interference has no such grounding.
His citation is: 56. Machan, Libertarianism Defended (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), Chapter 20; Eric Mack, “Libertarianism Untamed,” Journal of Social Philosophy (1991): 64-72; Jan Narveson, “Comments on Sterba’s Ethics Article,” unpublished circulated paper (1994) and Narveson’s Libertarian Idea (Peterborough, CA: Broadview Press: 2001), 35.
I don't presently have the time to search for those, but it would be a good idea to take a look before proceeding.
The argument isn't nonsense at all. It's just a different point of view. One libertarian response would to argue that the wealthy have a serious interest in not being expropriated of the products of their efforts and the material possessions which enrich their lives, and that the mere fact of inequality does not justify such blatant use of the wealthy as mere means for the alleviation of the poverty of others. Further, it would be impracticable to administer a property system in which the poor were given license to take some amount of possessions from the wealthy, as this would interfere with individuals having rights against things like trespassing and privacy which presumably the advocate of this view would want to preserve. It would be implausible, for example, to suggest that a poor person legitimately taking the property of a rich person would have a right against being interfered with in doing so, and the inevitable conflicts that would arise from a system allocating property rights in such an egalitarian manner would prove ruinous to social harmony.
So yea, I guess I'm arguing that such a rule would be morally illegitimate and impracticable, which are the responses that the objector mentioned. But I personally think those are pretty good responses in this case.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
being unable or unwilling to produce anything of value doesn't give you a claim on the property of those who work. Anyone who uses "poor people" as their catchall emotional appeal is an idiot.
James P. Sterba: What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.Needless to say, libertarians want to deny that the poor have this liberty. But how can they justify such a denial? As this liberty of the poor has been specified, it is not a positive liberty to receive something but a negative liberty of noninterference.
What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.Needless to say, libertarians want to deny that the poor have this liberty. But how can they justify such a denial? As this liberty of the poor has been specified, it is not a positive liberty to receive something but a negative liberty of noninterference.
It seems to me you could extend this sort of reasoning to anything. Is it now ok to not be interfered with while initiating rape because it would satisfy a "basic need" and because the victim isn't using that particular part of their anatomy at that particular time and is therefore surplus?
His definition of liberty is a) arbitrary (what is this "surplus"?) b) really a war of all against all, might makes right nonsense. Unimpressive.
To darkness I condemn you...
In fact, however, the liberty of the poor is at stake in such conflict situations. What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.
he conflates liberty with material wealth, a fairly obvious fail i would have thought.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Reads like socialist drivel.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
In contrast, imagine that the poor lack the resources to meet their basic needs to secure a decent life for themselves even though they have tried all the means available to them that libertarians regard as legitimate for acquiring such resources. Under circumstances like these, libertarians maintain that the rich should have the liberty to use their resources to satisfy their luxury needs if they so wish.
As Mises pointed out, the "luxuries" of the rich tend to quickly become "necessities" for the poor under capitalism.
What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.
If everyone had done this throughout history, we would be back at the stone age. Nothing would ever advance. The rich are wealthy because they increase the well-being of consumers and the public (including the poor).
As usual, our advocate of "compassion" does not mention how much he donates to charity: he just wants to take from others and transfer the wealth. He wants anyone who resists to be incarcerated (there's his "compassion" again).
I'm just amazed that he has so many supposedly libertarian authors who acknowledge and accept his point.
I tried but couldn't get a hold of Eric Mack's article in Social Philosophy. I did find an abstract for another article in which he basically stated the exact same thing as Sterba (the poor must be allowed to take bare necessities from the wealthy).
Do you agree with these two statements from the article. Are these acurate in the mind and methods of libertarianism. Do these refer to modern Austrian libertarians or the ancient communist usage of the term "libertarian". Are they too simplistic?...
Libertarians go on to characterize their political ideal as requiring that each person should have the greatest amount of liberty morally commensurate with the greatest amount of liberty for everyone else.[53] Interpreting their ideal in this way, libertarians claim to derive a number of more specific requirements, in particular, a right to life; a right to freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and a right to property.
So understood, liberty(negative right) is the absence of interference by other people from doing what one wants or is able to do.
TropicalK:Libertarians go on to characterize their political ideal as requiring that each person should have the greatest amount of liberty morally commensurate with the greatest amount of liberty for everyone else
this is a fail, because it assumes that peoples liberties conflict, which is a misunderstanding of liberty
Taxing the rich 'redistribution' simply puts resources into the hands of the state. The state is no better in fact worse at effectively allocating these resources than the market. Taxing the rich to supposedly help the poor with 'basic needs', in fact, makes everyone poorer and less satisfied. From stealing from the rich, you destroy capital accumulation and the productive base of the economy. Now the poor are at the mercy of the incompetent state, when in fact the poor should be enjoying the jobs and income from wealthy investors who compete to add value in the market.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Donny with an A: The argument isn't nonsense at all. It's just a different point of view. One libertarian response would to argue that the wealthy have a serious interest in not being expropriated of the products of their efforts and the material possessions which enrich their lives, and that the mere fact of inequality does not justify such blatant use of the wealthy as mere means for the alleviation of the poverty of others. Further, it would be impracticable to administer a property system in which the poor were given license to take some amount of possessions from the wealthy, as this would interfere with individuals having rights against things like trespassing and privacy which presumably the advocate of this view would want to preserve. It would be implausible, for example, to suggest that a poor person legitimately taking the property of a rich person would have a right against being interfered with in doing so, and the inevitable conflicts that would arise from a system allocating property rights in such an egalitarian manner would prove ruinous to social harmony. So yea, I guess I'm arguing that such a rule would be morally illegitimate and impracticable, which are the responses that the objector mentioned. But I personally think those are pretty good responses in this case.
How is this not nonsense? He's claiming that the rich are denying the liberty of the poor to steal from them. Then he claims that this is a negative liberty. It's the one of the most outrageous things I've ever heard.
which brings us to the conclusion that the problem of socialism is a logistical one. how to steal and transfer wealth without squandering it
Nibbler, from G.A. Cohen's Self-ownership, Freedom, and Equality (55-56):
The banal truth is, if the state prevents me from doing something that I want to do, then it places a restriction on my freedom. Suppose, then, that I want to perform an action which involves a legally prohibited use of your property. I want, let us say, to pitch a tent in your large back garden, perhaps just in order to annoy you, or perhaps for the more substantial reason that I have nowhere to live and no land of my own, but I have got hold of a tent, legitimately or otherwise. If I now try to do this thing that I want to do, the chances are that the state will intervene on your behalf. If it does, I shall suffer a constraint on my freedom. The same goes, of course, for all unpermitted use of a piece of private property by those who do not own it, and there are always those who do not own it, since 'private ownership by one person presupposes non-ownership on the part of other persons.
The negative liberty that Sterba has in mind is not the liberty to steal from the rich: obviously this is a positive liberty. The negative liberty in question is the liberty to do what one pleases (Sterba might say "the liberty to do what one must do to satisfy one's basic needs") without being interfered with by others. And by enforcing property rights on behalf of those whose stuff the poor would be taking in such situations, we would be infringing upon the negative liberty of the takers of the property. Libertarians would generally want to argue that this infringement is justified because the property claims would presumably be legitimate and this would justify defensive intervention. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a constraint on people for us to stop them from using other people's property.
Donny with an A:The negative liberty in question is the liberty to do what one pleases ... without being interfered with by others.
But isn't this conception of negative liberty incoherent? If I have the right to do whatever I want without interference, then you cannot have the same right, by definition.
I suppose the proviso ("to do what one must do to satisfy one's basic needs") might offer a way out. But I think it suffers from the same problem, that the right cannot be held equally by everyone.
This article seems relevant: "Why Libertarians Believe There Is Only One Right" - Roderick Long.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Sage, I think you're trying to identify the concept of negative liberty (which only has to do with a particular way of talking about freedom -- namely, identifying what one is free from, as opposed to positive liberty which identifies freedom to) with libertarian conceptions of justice, and that's simply not going to work. Libertarianism is most definitely not about avoiding infringements on negative liberty at all costs (it is about recognizing a need to provide justification for infringements on negative liberty, but that's different). Libertarians generally believe that all sorts of things can justify infringing upon negative freedom: self-defense, defense of property, and enforcement of contracts immediately come to mind.
As for the idea that norms of the sort outlined by Sterba could not apply universally, I guess I wasn't trying to articulate the point in a way that would be ready to go to battle with. If you wanted a truly defensible formulation, you might be able to go with "The freedom to do what is necessary to satisfy one's basic needs in a way that does not subordinate the basic or serious needs of any other person without being interfered with by others." That's a norm that could apply to everyone without coming into conflict with itself, and it's not entirely implausible -- it's most certainly not nonsense.
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