Philosophy discussion
Politics
>
What Is The Limit to Personal Freedom?
Robert wrote: "I approach most problems that way, and from that epistemological foundation. If there is no way to falsify an argument based on objective criteria, then it may be intellectually interesting but it is of little use. "Oh, dear. That vastly limits the number of things you find of use. Just a few of the arguments that you can't falsify based on objective criteria are "love is better than hate," "dictatorship is the fairest form of government," "It is better that Goodreads exists than that it doesn't exist," to name just three.
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "As you say, technically the definition of this fallacy in logic is when the proposition to be proven is assumed in the premise...and that is what is going on here"I don't agree. T..."
Everyman,
It's the minor premise - P2, that contains the proposition itself. The proposition to be proven is that the transfer of wealth is a bad thing...that is what is contained in the minor premise.
You are referring to P1, the major premise. Yes, that is a definition only...it's the next part that becomes begging the question.
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "I approach most problems that way, and from that epistemological foundation. If there is no way to falsify an argument based on objective criteria, then it may be intellectually inte..."I can demonstrate that love is better than hate, on a practical level, by pointing to the objectively verifiable harm that comes from hate - violence in all its forms.
Whether dictatorship, or socialism, or democracy, or a republic is the "best" form of government...sorry, but it's true. That is in the eye of the beholder and depends on their personal criteria.
The same is true about Goodreads...I happen to think its existence is a good thing...someone else doesn't. I can argue about what I like about Goodreads, and what I like about democracy...but in the end, it's of little use, because my opponent might have a different view.
I just had a long conversation last night with a very intelligent person who is considering going to Cuba because she feels that life there will be better than it is here (she has been there 12 times). You will likely strongly disagree with her. However, your arguments, and her arguments, will both be based on your own personal opinions. I might find listening to that debate to be interesting, but in the end, I will just have to make up my own mind.
So...that's what I mean.
Hi Everyman --The definition "transfer of wealth means government transfer of wealth" doesn't have any value judgment of assumption within it.
I agree there. But the actual premise in question has defined transfer of wealth much differently, to the point of being opinion. That definition needs a further argument to support the restriction on its use. Otherwise, the conclusion, in order to make the argument sound as well as valid, would have to be restated, "C.>>Therefore, the opinion of those who subscribe to P1 is that government transfer of wealth is evil."
All logical arguments depend on agreed definitions; one of the main problems with discussion or argumentation comes when people are using the same term to mean different things.
I think here that even the terms are different; that's to say, the reference isn't even the same for the competing senses in which it's used. The ambiguous definitions are actually leading to unrelated arguments. The reference, for its part, is subject to a true or false valuation, provided it's not arbitrary.
"What is the limit to personal freedom?"Todos mis amigos,
¡Tenga un Buen Nuevo año!
—
Back to the original question, what is the limit to freedom, in one sense on can say that there are really three basic sources of limits to personal freedom:1. Nature -- what I physically cannot do. I am not free to fly without any mechanical assistance, no matter how much I wish to.
2. The self. What I choose not to do.
3. Society (in its broadest sense, including government, neighbors, family, anybody I meet on the street, etc.). What those around me prevent me from doing.
2 and 3 are inter-related in a way, since if the government says I cannot drive over 65 miles an hour on a road I can choose to do it and choose to accept the consequences (there are always consequences to any decision I make, after all). But society also has power to physically limit my freedom, including the ultimate prevention of death. Though I can choose that, also; witness Socrates, or "death by cop."
Everyman wrote: "Back to the original question, what is the limit to freedom, in one sense on can say that there are really three basic sources of limits to personal freedom:1. Nature -- what I physically cannot..."
#2 strikes me as not a limit to freedom. What I choose not to do does not limit my freedom. I, after all, chose it.
Hi Everyman --Okay, I follow. Am I right to conclude that source #3 is where the most attention should be focused?
Tyler wrote: "Hi Everyman --Okay, I follow. Am I right to conclude that source #3 is where the most attention should be focused?"
#1 and #3 are the only two that really approach a "limitation" to human freedom. However, even they are not fully efficient.
Societal - these limitations can either be accepted or not (#2). Sure...as E. says, not to accept means consequences. But that just extends the point...the consequences are either accepted as a limitation or not. Sometimes, people are clever enough to reject societal limitations and also avoid the consequences. Therefore, is it really a limit? Or is it personal choice?
Nature - Comes closer, but even there the history of discovery shows that we typically find a way to get around those limitations. Currently, we must have mechanical assistance to fly. Would I assume that we will not figure out a way to fly without the mechanical assistance? No...I would not assume that.
It has often been joked that the only sure things are death and taxes. Obviously, taxes are erroneously put in that category (#2 again). Death? OK...currently it is surely an unavoidable event. But would I assume that it will always be so? Not at all. To do so would be to ignore the rate of progress in our ability to circumvent natural limits.
So...in the end, are there truly any insurmountable limits to human freedom? Or, are there only those of the present moment?
Patrice wrote: "And just to be clear, I don't think I ever said that taxation was theft. I suppose that could be another discussion. But I wonder why Tyler changed what I was saying? Taxation as theft sounds mu..."Patrice,
What are you advocating? Radical Libertarianism? Equating taxation with armed robbery seems to argue in that direction. Leaping from redistribution to implying that someone is questioning private property also seems unwarranted and extreme...so...
Libertarianism? Is that your position? Sorry, I haven't read the entire 222 post thread. If you are being asked to repeat yourself, I apologize.
Robert wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "As you say, technically the definition of this fallacy in logic is when the proposition to be proven is assumed in the premise...and that is what is going on here"..."
Hello everyone! My name is Aaron and I'm new to this group, politics and philosophy have always been interests of mine and this has been a particularly interesting thread (at least as far as I've gotten through, anyway). I'm jumping into a conversation already in progress, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm asking questions or discussing matters you all have long since covered.
P1. Redistribution of wealth means government transfers to individuals.
P2. Government transfers to individuals are evil.
===
C.>>Therefore, redistribution of wealth is evil.
That about sums the anti statist argument (minor quibble: P1 and P2 can be transfer of wealth from anyone to anyone else, whether individuals or groups). Robert is right to say the argument hinges on P2; if that is granted, C follows, but P2 is not universally accepted.
There are two ways wealth can be redistributed, voluntarily and involuntarily. Voluntary redistribution usually involves some sort of charity or gift; I think there is agreement that this is fine, so we should limit our discussion to involuntary redistribution.
If the wealthy individual will not voluntarily surrender their wealth, how does redistribution occur? We can reason with them, but that leads to the wealthy voluntarily donating wealth, which we just ruled nobody has a bone to pick about.
To get their wealth, government must use force. Assuming this particular wealthy person has not committed a serious crime, the government is using force (or the threat thereof) against an innocent citizen.
P2 ultimately rests on the notion that violence should not be used or threatened against peaceful citizens.
The converse argument, that involuntary redistribution is not evil, will need to make an argument justifying the use or threat of force against peaceful citizens.
Ok, my quick entry into the fray. Time to celebrate New Years and my birthday!
Hi Patrice --I wonder why Tyler changed what I was saying?/Tyler quoted me as saying that taxation is theft and I was correcting him.
In post 180 you said:
Patrice: If I am poor or rich and want your money, it is not government's obligation to "steal" it from one to give to the other.
and I took up that point in post 185:
Tyler: You're saying the idea that "Taxation is theft" is sound.
It certainly sounded like that's what you were saying. But now that you've made your position clear, I obviously misunderstood you.
If we don't believe in compensation for work, if we don't believe in private property, why not just say so?
Who said that? The discussion has been about a much narrower point.
Hi Aaron --I'm jumping into a conversation already in progress, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm asking questions or discussing matters you all have long since covered.
Welcome to the thread. It's fine to jump in, and once a thread gets long enough, repetition is always needed. To give you a quick run-down, we've been using the syllogism to discuss how the concept of "redistribution of wealth" properly applies, specifically in the case of government activity.
(minor quibble: P1 and P2 can be transfer of wealth from anyone to anyone else, whether individuals or groups).
It has been my contention that this is more than just a minor quibble, and that it affects the argument. What we're considering is which definition to use, but we've reached no agreement. It is a classic anti-statist argument, but the question is whether it can be improved.
Patrice wrote: "Very good argument Aaron. Again, why do we assume that if we give the government the right to redistribute property it will go to the poor? If the government has the right to take property it c..."
Legitimate point. I guess "wealthy" in my first post should mean whomever it is that has wealth that will be redistributed. That is a point I think most libertarian's would agree with, but their terminology usually doesn't include it since current policies tend to be from the rich to the poor (though there has been some blow back against bailouts and the like recently in libertarian circles). Certainly worth clarifying, though.
Hi Robert --Your points are well made, and I think Sartre would agree in both instances that the actual freedom a human being possesses is far more than we acknowledge in everyday life. So the point you've made is important, namely, to what extent is a limitation on freedom set in concrete? I'm surprised at your view about overcoming natural obstacles, but it's true that if we all live longer, we'll have more aggregate freedom. Should we invest in life-extension technology?
Everyman says in post 217 that one can say that there are really three basic sources of limits to personal freedom, natural, personal and societal. So, provided this is a complete enumeration of the ways personal freedom gets limited, I would ask which one of the three matters most. I thought it was #3, because that will include #2 and the kinds of ways society limits the individual have moral implications as well. Either way, it's important for everyone to stop for a moment to think about the general ways in which freedom is limited.
Hi Patrice --His point was that when you have two separate segments of society, one who contributes and one who takes, you have a powder keg of resentment. I think that's the situation we're moving towards and it has to be reversed if we're to be one America.
Will it be okay if I (or you) move this part of the post to Robert's thread or a new one? I think it's important enough to stand on its own, and it will get more attention there.
It's the powerful who determines the tax structure. What is "thine is mine" is the belief in power. World history indicates that the people in wealthy countries may give freedom to their own people but subjugate others or at least intervene in their freedom of choice.
The wealthiest country per capita in the world, last time I looked, was Norway. Circumstances and geography also play a role in the developement of wealth. It's not completely ideology. Inflexible ideology in politics, religion,philosophy, or whatever will encourage revolutions of some sort.
It is human nature to want ownership of land in some form or another. We took the land from first nations because they did not really own it or because they had a more socialistic view of ownership? The peasants just wanted a small piece of land in Russia to call their own. The USSR experiment proved that beyond a doubt. If first nations were more into agriculture the concept of land ownership may have been more developed before our arrival.
Tyler
Reading more interesting stuff on Sartre. I agree society limits the idividual's level of freedom. On the other hand I'm glad it does so I don't have three huge men at my door telling me they decided they wanted to live in my house.
The wealthiest country per capita in the world, last time I looked, was Norway. Circumstances and geography also play a role in the developement of wealth. It's not completely ideology. Inflexible ideology in politics, religion,philosophy, or whatever will encourage revolutions of some sort.
It is human nature to want ownership of land in some form or another. We took the land from first nations because they did not really own it or because they had a more socialistic view of ownership? The peasants just wanted a small piece of land in Russia to call their own. The USSR experiment proved that beyond a doubt. If first nations were more into agriculture the concept of land ownership may have been more developed before our arrival.
Tyler
Reading more interesting stuff on Sartre. I agree society limits the idividual's level of freedom. On the other hand I'm glad it does so I don't have three huge men at my door telling me they decided they wanted to live in my house.
Patrice wrote: "Robert, how is "leaping from redistribution to implying that someone is questioning private property unwarrented"? Believe me, I could use some extra money! I just don't think that I'm entitled t..."I think it's a leap because there is no necessary logical connection between redistribution of wealth and private property. In other words, both can easily exist simultaneously...they are not antitheses. To me, that is stating the obvious, but maybe it helps clarify.
Your post led me to believe that you see them as opposed, which they clearly are not. Maybe I misunderstood you.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Patrice --I wonder why Tyler changed what I was saying?/Tyler quoted me as saying that taxation is theft and I was correcting him.
In post 180 you said:
Patrice: If I am poor or rich aIf we don't believe in compensation for work, if we don't believe in private property, why not just say so?
Who said that? The discussion has been about a much narrower point. "
Precisely, Tyler. This is part of what I was trying to say about private property arguments not following from a discussion on redistribution of wealth.
Patrice wrote: "If I have two cars and my neighbor has none and the government decides to "redistribute" then it can take my car and give it to my neighbor. I thought that was called communism.No, Patrice...that is not communism. You are simply talking about taxation, entitlement programs, safety nets and the like. Those things are absolutely not "communism". Communism is a specific form of government or social organization where the means of production and the output of production are held in common and, typically, controlled by the state. This country has a primarily capitalist structure, which is the opposite of communism. However, it is not a pure free-market because there is government regulation and law, and yes there are government safety nets and entitlements which are funded through taxation, as agreed upon through elected representatives in a Republic. Very different from an absence of private property and total control by the state, in the hopes that the proletariat will eventually become the party in power and the state will wither away - which is classic communism. It's important to not see these issues as "either/or", or "black/white". Those discrete categories don't apply.
Redistribution of wealth sounds to me, like a euphonism (that spelling looks wrong). Anyway, doesn't that mean that I have no right to my property?"
Obviously, your conclusion does not follow. Case in point: I own two cars and a house - voila! Private property. However, I am still taxed, and part of my taxes go to support common programs from which others(other than myself) benefit, e.g. Social Security, Welfare, the U.S. Military, etc. That is redistribution.
So, you see? Redistribution and Private Property can coexist without necessitating a conversation about "communism".
Patrice wrote: "Do you really believe that what is meant by "redistribution of wealth" is the same as paying for the military? "Yes...I absolutely do. That is a form of wealth redistribution, pure and simple. If I personally do not believe that we should have a military at all (which is not what I believe, just for the record), or if I believe that a military is justified but should be much smaller, or deployed much less frequently or on different principles or policy, and therefore do not wish to pay for the one we have, well, I'm just shit outa luck! Because my money is going to be used for it whether I like it or not, according to the law. So...that is what I call redistribution.
It's very common for people to complain about one form of redistribution, but completely accept others, as accords with their own ideological position. But if we are going to discuss redistribution, we have to take it for what it is.
Yes, there is a difference in redistribution for the purpose of the military, and redistribution for the purpose of welfare...but it is a difference in application, not in core concept.
And yes...you are certainly entitled to your belief and it is absolutely ok that we disagree! But in this forum, debating those positions is also appropriate (smile).
Now...here's a challenge: since you believe people are entitled to what they earn (and I assume you accept also the corollary - they are not entitled to what they DON'T earn), then I will assume that you will be consistent in that position: when you become medicare eligible (if you aren't already) you will refuse to accept those benefits and pay for your healthcare as you are able without recourse to government programs. Further, you will reject any Social Security assistance. That would be consistent with your position.
You may be thinking, "I paid into social security and medicare through taxes, so I have a right to them!" However, think again: it is quite well-known that the amount you have paid in is not sufficient to cover what you will likely take out, actuarially speaking, if you live a long life. You will have access to that because many OTHERS have paid in and the risk is spread among a large population. So...since you feel that benefits should be commensurate with earnings, I'm sure you will refuse those benefits.
(grin - good ole Robin Hood - the first socialist!)
Robert wrote: So, you see? Redistribution and Private Property can coexist without necessitating a conversation about "communism". ...."
Private property means that whatever object we are talking about belongs to a particular person or group who created it, paid for it, or received it as as gift. They may use it as they like, so long as the rights of others are not being violated (I may not use my knife to murder someone; that person's body is their own property which I may not touch).
Any redistribution requires the use or threat of force to take property from its owner. That property ceases to be private. But doesn't that make all of that person's wealth potentially public property? Your two cars and a house are your private property...right up until they are redistributed. If we accept that property can morally be redistributed involuntarily, no property is private; it is merely public property that hasn't been redistributed, yet. At any point in time, property can be taken from you, which means that property (by definition) is not private to you.
A similar conversation is going on concerning the nature of property and redistributing wealth at Cato Unbound (http://www.cato-unbound.org/). Some pretty bright experts arguing for each side, for anyone interested.
Aaron wrote: "Robert wrote: So, you see? Redistribution and Private Property can coexist without necessitating a conversation about "communism". ...."
Private property means that whatever object we are talkin..."
No, I don't see it that way at all. You are talking about hypotheticals - IF the government were to ever decide to TAKE my house against my will and GIVE it to someone who doesn't have one, etc. etc., then in essence all private property is potentially public, etc etc.
Hypothetical situations simply aren't useful, in my mind, to distinguish between private property and communism. I mean, I can say that I potentially will be eaten in my front yard tomorrow by an alligator, so therefore, it is not accurate for me to say I'm safe standing in my front yard in Florida. Yes, I can make that argument, but is making the argument of any practical benefit in assessing my level of safety?? No.
Patrice wrote: "As for social security, I have always considered that I would not receive it, given the system which I think is terrible. Whatever we put in to the system went to my parents and my husband's parents. Had there been no social security we would have supported them out of pocket. Instead the government acted as intermediary and yes, it's true that they collected much more than they put in or that we put in. I think it's a bad system. And Medicare is going broke too. Something is amiss! ..."Maybe, but I sense you may be evading the point. The point is this: whether or not it is mismanaged, or will be there when you need it, or is going broke (all of which are important issues but not to the point I was making), the question is this: will you refuse those benefits, if they are available to you, on principle alone? That is the question I was posing.
Robert wrote: "No, I don't see it that way at all. You are talking about hypotheticals - IF the government were to ever decide to TAKE my house against my will and GIVE it to someone who doesn't have one, etc. etc., then in essence all private property is potentially public, etc etc.Hypothetical situations simply aren't useful, in my mind, to distinguish between private property and communism. I mean, I can say that I potentially will be eaten in my front yard tomorrow by an alligator, so therefore, it is not accurate for me to say I'm safe standing in my front yard in Florida. Yes, I can make that argument, but is making the argument of any practical benefit in assessing my level of safety?? No. "
Property is either private or it is not. I either have an exclusive right to a thing, or I do not. A thing cannot be both A and Not A. If my property is private to me, nobody, including the government, may take it from me. If someone else has a right to take it from me, it is not private to me.
Private property is not contingent on the government not taking something from me. It is contingent on those other people not having the right to take it from me.
I'll give a more realistic example. My folks bought a house a few years ago. Here, in NY, property taxes have soared to a point where they could no longer afford to keep up with the payments. They went bankrupt.
Was that money taken by the government "private?" They sure thought it was when they bought the house. The whole point of having private property is to have resources exclusive to you that can be counted on to exist in the future. If the government has a right to take that property away, it is not private; my parents could not dispose of that wealth in the way they had planned. Not only did it undermine the wealth directly taken from them by the government, it undermined all of their other resources as well.
The presence of redistributive powers does not create a full blown, post revolution Marxist state, but it does undermine the concept of private property to an extent that basically makes the term pointless.
Aaron wrote: "Property is either private or it is not. I either have an exclusive right to a thing, or I do not. A thing cannot be both A and Not A. If my property is private to me, nobody, including the government, may take it from me. If someone else has a right to take it from me, it is not private to me. ..."
True, as far as it goes. However, it doesn't change the uselessness of arguing in hypotheticals. Here's what I mean: the house that I own is private property. Why? Because, as you said, no one has the right to take it from me. Period. The fact that, at some point in the future, laws might be changed in such a way that it could be taken from me is irrelevant. Anything can happen. However, as things are, my house is private property.
I'll give a more realistic example. My folks bought a house a few years ago. Here, in NY, property taxes have soared to a point where they could no longer afford to keep up with the payments. They went bankrupt.
That's very unfortunate...I am really sorry to hear that. But relative to this discussion, your point is? Here's the deal, if your parents can not afford the payments on their house loan (I assume it was mortgaged), and thereby lose the house, that's a sad story, but it doesn't change the fact that the house is not owned by the state. It was owned by whoever held the mortgage, and your parents were trying to gradually buy it from the mortgage holder, and they were unable to pull it off. Period.
The fact that the situation was complicated by property taxes doesn't make the house publicly owned.
The taxes on the property, which are used to fund services for the good of people (road maintenance, infrastructure, parks, schools, etc.)have nothing to do with whether or not the house is private property. You are confounding the core argument with a smokescreen.
So, although I follow your point, I think it is off base relative to this argument.
Robert wrote: "Aaron wrote: "Property is either private or it is not. I either have an exclusive right to a thing, or I do not. A thing cannot be both A and Not A. If my property is private to me, nobody, includi..."Did I say the house is public property? No. I didn't even say they weren't paying the mortgage on it; they are. Disagreeing with me is fine, but do not put words into my mouth. I'm saying that property tax hikes over a grand per year on a middle class family in a recession can be devastating, especially if decisions were made prior to these events based on the assumption that one's property is private. Unfortunately, we live under a system that sees property as a public resource should the public decide to claim it.
I get it that this is a hypothetical for you (though I'm confused as what the status of your property is prior to you paying it in the form of taxes). For millions of others, though, it isn't. We have to ask ourselves whether the money we earn is actually going to be there when we need or want it, or whether someone else is going to claim it with force. It isn't always about houses.
"Anything can happen." Given the national debt, the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, state's struggling to balance budgets, and the trillions in unfunded pensions, the idea that our "private" property may be taken from us to pay for wealth already redistributed to others strikes me as plausible rather than merely as a theoretical possibility on par with alligator attacks.
Robert, I think you and I are talking past each other a little. My first post responding to you was concerned entirely with the nature and definition of private property and nothing to do with communism. I defined private property as having exclusive control over a resource. If the government has a moral or legal right to take the property for its own ends, it is no longer exclusive to the first owner. It is not private property, whatever else it may be.
The discussion of your house and my parents' house is fairly useless I think, since neither of us knows the other well enough to make sense of it and they are too small to really abstract anything from.
In relation to communism or socialism, it requires a definition of property that allows the government to seize property. My definition (and I believe Patrice's, but I'm not positive) precludes a socialist or communist system; people have an exclusive right to property, meaning nobody, including the government, may take it. Allowing the government to have a right to "private" property is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a socialist state.
Hope that cleared things up a bit.
Robert wrote: "#2 strikes me as not a limit to freedom. What I choose not to do does not limit my freedom. I, after all, chose it. "It may be self-imposed, but it's still a limit to your freedom. Of course you can change it any time, just as society can change its rules any time.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Everyman --Okay, I follow. Am I right to conclude that source #3 is where the most attention should be focused?"
I'm not sure. We need to understand in #1 (nature) which are real limits and which are only perceived limits, but I suspect that's not something of huge interest to most of us.
#2 (personally imposed limits) is perhaps the most interesting, an certainly the one we can do most about. We choose to limit our freedom, for example, when we decide to become vegetarians, when we reserve our loss of virginity until marriage, when we choose not to gamble our life savings away, and on and on. I love those psychological experiments which look at ethical behavior (what do people do when they find a wallet with $100 in it on the sidewalk? What do they do when the cashier gives them change for a $50 when they know they only gave the cashier a $20, when they are told after promising to keep a secret that their best friend's wife is sleeping with a guy she met in a bar, and so on. All very revealing of self-imposed limits on freedom, or the lack thereof.) I find #2 limits perhaps the most interesting in principle.
But you're right that #3 limits are the ones that are most conducive to the kind of discussions we have here, and in most of our interactions with others.
Patrice wrote: "If I have two cars and my neighbor has none and the government decides to "redist..."Well, no, because under pure communism you don't own the cars in the first place.
Aaron wrote: "I'm saying that property tax hikes over a grand per year on a middle class family in a recession can be devastating, especially if decisions were made prior to these events based on the assumption that one's property is private. "Part of the assumptions one has to make in taking on an obligation such as buying the house is how much taxes are likely to go up, or how high they might go. We know that the majority of citizens continue to demand more, not less, government. (How many New Yorkers are saying "oh it's okay that my street wasn't plowed for five days"?) They want the streets plowed and they want them plowed NOW, and that takes tax money.
I'm sorry about your parents, and I'm sorry if this post sounds harsh to you, it's not meant to but you brought their situation into play. Should a tax bill hike really have been a huge surprise to them? How often do taxes go up, and how often do they go down?
If they were budgeting so tightly that the tax increase was what caused them to lose their house and their investment in it, were they making a wise decision in the first place?
Part of the free market system is that people are free to make decisions that turn out badly. If they had lived in a socialist country where the government provided subsidized housing in huge housing blocks to all, they wouldn't have had that happen.
Hi Aaron --If the government has a moral or legal right to take the property for its own ends, it is no longer exclusive to the first owner.
Saying that something is either A or not-A, whatever its logical merits, forces the conclusion that all property is public.
The government decides what property ownership amounts to in the first place, and what restrictions attach to a deed or title. Private property is a legal concept. Thus, regardless of moral principles, we're arguing, under A or not-A, about the use of public property.
Because we don't commonly think of houses and cars this way, I question whether A or not-A is the best basis for a libertarian defense of private property.
Hi Everyman --As you said, #3 subsumes #2 in a way as a restriction on freedom. If we look at #2, self-imposed restrictions, one feature that strikes me is the source of the limitation.
If #1 points to natural contingencies, those restrictions on our freedom to act are non-moral. In #3, the restrictions applied on a social basis are what I would call moral ones. But in #2, the restrictions imposed are perhaps better described a ethical ones.
In an ethical system of thinking, as I understand it, the virtues play a crucial role in leading to the values individuals will act upon. This brings up the applicability of moral and ethical systems, and focuses attention on their origin.
Moral systems such as Kant's are relatively recent. But does a moral system intended to hold people together in a society really cover all the contingencies that arise? Or more to the point, does a moral system restrict freedom unduly in some ways and leave the door open too much in others?
Perhaps a drawback of modern life is concentrating too much on public morality and not enough on individual ethical reasoning.
Aaron wrote: "Did I say the house is public property? No. I didn't even say they weren't paying the mortgage on it; they are. Disagreeing with me is fine, but do not put words into my mouth..."Hi Aaron,
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. If that is the way it came across I apologize.
As I recall, I think I put the disclaimer that I was making assumptions about what you meant when you described your parents' situation. If my assumptions were incorrect, again...you have my apology.
however, i don't think I am talking past you at all. i think that you are occluding two distinct issues, and that you are redefining private property to suit your argument when the definition you are using is a)not the common one, and b)not useful in exploring the point of limitations to human freedom. Why? Because I would argue that the way you are attempting to define private property would mean that no property anywhere in the world, in any country, or under any economic system could be considered truly "private" under your definition. And when that is the case, the definition ceases to have any practical meaning (see Dewey and James).
And I still do not see how property taxes, as a social construct, change any of that.
Again...sorry for coming across like I was reinterpreting your statements...not what I meant to do. Thanks for the ongoing dialogue.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Aaron --If the government has a moral or legal right to take the property for its own ends, it is no longer exclusive to the first owner.
Saying that something is either A or not-A, what..."
Tyler wrote: "Hi Aaron --
If the government has a moral or legal right to take the property for its own ends, it is no longer exclusive to the first owner.
Saying that something is either A or not-A, what..."
Precisely, Tyler. I read this after my last post. this is what I was trying to say...although you said it much more succinctly.
Everyman wrote: "Part of the free market system is that people are free to make decisions that turn out badly. If they had lived in a socialist country where the government provided subsidized housing in huge housing blocks to all, they wouldn't have had that happen. "In a free market system, people have to be able to assume their resources will remain in their possession. Any economic decision to buy capital or durable goods requires it, since they are generally financed over the long term.
Things got tight with the recession, yes. We could not have predicted it. I don't know too many people who did.
Government has access to our "private" property. Things got tight for the government, too (they also failed to prepare for this mess), but rather than cutting back, they made use of their access to other people's property. This idea of private property is protecting us from theft from one another, sure, but it isn't doing anything to protect us from the biggest bully on the block. This bully won't take your shirt (or your house) because it isn't really fungible, but they'll go after your lunch money.
Also, giving what I am seeing in Europe (and Fannie and Freddie's role here), I doubt a socialist system would have done any better. Heck, depending on one's definition of socialism, one could argue that we had a semi-socialist system in place (Government Sponsored Enterprises to finance housing, the Fed's artificially low inflation rates to increase spending, Community Reinvestment Act, etc.) and that it failed.
I'm just trying to get a solid definition for what private property is, in particular that private aspect.
I think I may have dragged us way off of the topic (it started off way back when with Isaiah Berlin, one of my favorites). Perhaps a thread dedicated to economics could be useful? I doubt terms like "free market" and "socialism" and "mixed economy" are really that clear in our minds; I hear each of them used by my fellow history teachers to describe the United States.
Don't even get me going on the education system, by the way ;-)
Also, apologies if I come off as a hardcase. If I think I see a weakness in an idea, I go after it until it is explained. God knows there are enough weaknesses in my own ideas (human, all too human), but that's why I'm here, to have them sought out!
Aaron wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Part of the free market system is that people are free to make decisions that turn out badly. If they had lived in a socialist country where the government provided subsidized hous..."You don't come off as "hard case" at all. Just strongly invested in your opinion - wow, how unusual in this group (haha).
Private Property (a working definition from Wikipedia): the right of persons and firms to obtain, own, control, employ, dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property.[1] Private property is distinguished from public property, which refers to assets owned by a state, community or government rather than by individuals or a business entity.[2]
I own a house right now. There is no mortgage. I have all of the rights above. Therefore, it is privately owned, as opposed to publicly owned......
Private ownership of land ensures the land will be put to productive use and its value protected by the landowner. If the owners must pay property taxes, this forces the owners to maintain a productive output from the land to keep taxes current. Private property also attaches a monetary value to land, which can be used to trade or as collateral. Private property thus is an important part of capitalization within the economy.
Note the distinction above between the ownership and rights related to the property, and taxation.
Hope that's clearer.
Tyler wrote: "If #1 points to natural contingencies, those restrictions on our freedom to act are non-moral. In #3, the restrictions applied on a social basis are what I would call moral ones. But in #2, the restrictions imposed are perhaps better described a ethical ones.In an ethical system of thinking, as I understand it, the virtues play a crucial role in leading to the values individuals will act upon. This brings up the applicability of moral and ethical systems, and focuses attention on their origin. "
I would agree that many of the individual constraints are ethical. I'm not so sure, however, how many societal constraints are moral, particularly not if you separate morality and religion, since a significant number of societal constraints arise from religion. But many societal constraints arise largely from convenience, or from the ability of those in power to impose their will on those without power without any respect to morality (just how moral, for example, were the societal constraints in Stalin's Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, or in Venezuela, Rhodesia, Iran, or many other countries even today.
Robert wrote: "I own a house right now. There is no mortgage. I have all of the rights above. Therefore, it is privately owned, as opposed to publicly owned...... "Until the local government decides that the land your house is on would be more productively used for a shopping mall or factory or highway or football stadium. In which case, they take it and pay what they think it is worth, which may have no relationship to what it's truly worth to you.
The point being that it is private property only as long as the government allows it to remain private property. Ultimately the government has the right to take and use any property it wishes to, and all they have to do is compensate you for taking it.
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "I own a house right now. There is no mortgage. I have all of the rights above. Therefore, it is privately owned, as opposed to publicly owned...... "Until the local government deci..."
Thanks Everyman - we covered this point on hypotheticals in earlier posts. Rather than repeat them, I'll just refer back to those posts.
Hi Everyman --But many societal constraints arise largely from convenience, or from the ability of those in power to impose their will ...
Some societal restrictions stem from prudence, and it's hard to argue that such a restriction rises to the level of being a moral one.
If arbitrary power devolves to a single dictator, such as with Stalin, Hitler, or Mugabe, that would be an example, but not the only one, of egoism. With the distinction between social and individual restrictions on freedom, their power is unjustified because no way has been established to get from what one person wants to what the society as a whole would agree to.
Iran, to me, gives us an example of a nation governed by a morality -- in this case, a religious one. But since someone has to apply the theological reasoning to real world situations, freedom is being restricted by a particular group, here the clerics. The authority of this group to rule is doubtful.
With Venezuela today I think power is spread out in such a way that the limits on freedom are societal, based in the contitution. It's true the executive branch has extensive power, but that power can and has been limited by an institutional process.
There is a question whether societal restrictions are non-moral or moral. But a further distinction has to be made between "moral" (right) and "immoral" (wrong) restrictions. When this comes up in a social context, I think the problem is really one of justice. We'd need to ask what a just act is, and what an unjust act amounts to.
Robert wrote: "Aaron wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Part of the free market system is that people are free to make decisions that turn out badly. If they had lived in a socialist country where the government provided s..."Here's the problem as I see it with that definition.
On the one hand, there is the right to control and dispose of property as one sees fit.
On the other hand, "If the owners must pay property taxes..." implies that the owner does not have control over its disposition.
I think there's a bit of a definitional problem we're having with the term property. It is colloquially used to mean land and buildings, but I'm using it more in the sense that John Locke used it in 2nd Treatise to mean any possessions of mine, including money.
Ownership of land or houses is not protected by the notion of private property as much as it is the fact that repossessing and using such property is inexpedient for the government. I imagine that there are many houses in places like Myanmar or China (or historically Soviet Russia) that people do not worry about losing, not because they have private property rights but because the government has no real use for that property.
This isn't to say the United States could just take property without compensation (though that they can take it through eminent domain shows some more weakness in the idea that the owner has control over the deposition of property). It would not be fiscally or politically expedient.
Our property in the form of money has proven to be more fiscally and politically expedient for the government to take. At one point in time during this nation's history, any income tax by the Federal government would have seemed like a ridiculous notion; slowly over time, we have reached a point where a 33% income tax is considered normal, and when considered in conjunction with state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, FICA, and everything else, could approach 50% of income for some people.
My definition is inflexible, but the virtue of that is that it gives us a firm place to stand: this is my property, no one else shall touch it without my say so. Creating an exception for taxation allows politicians to claim more property as public whenever it is politically acceptable to do so. Property rights are no longer inalienable but subject to political winds.
The questions that pop up then are numerous: if property rights are inalienable, how should states raise revenue? Should they? Is there some other compromise that can be made that can keep the clear definition but allow taxes in some form?
If property rights are not inalienable, how do we draw the line between what the government may take and may not take other than the political fortunes of different political parties? Is the current way acceptable?
I think I can actually dovetail this back into the actual thread topic! Don't have anything resembling the time to go into all of that now or in the near future, though. Certainly an interesting discussion though!
Aaron wrote: "Robert wrote: "Aaron wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Part of the free market system is that people are free to make decisions that turn out badly. If they had lived in a socialist country where the govern..."Aaron, just for a moment, let's drop the labyrinthine philosophical and definitional musings, and cut right to the chase. What precisely are you advocating? Are you advocating:
- no government
- severely limited government (and if so, what would be the primary limitations?)
- no taxes
- severely limited taxes (and if so, which would be legitimate?)
- no property taxes
I'm just getting lost in all the circuitous discussion...I'm sure it's just me. The overall discussion is an exploration of the limits of freedom, and the specific example we were discussing is private property. You seem to have a definition of it that allows for no property taxes, which you seem to think renders the property no longer private. So, to try and cut through all this, please tell us which, of the above list, you are advocating, and which you are not...and if there are other things not on the list, specifically what are those things you are advocating?
Tyler wrote: "Some societal restrictions stem from prudence, and it's hard to argue that such a restriction rises to the level of being a moral one.
My first instinct was to agree, but with caution. Some of the dietary laws of early Judaism are a good example; they were prudent in the context of food preparation and storage limitations of the times, but are they still rules of pure prudence, or have they become rules of religious morality, since the need for the prudence really no longer exists in modern societies?
But in other cases, doesn't prudence get mixed up with morality? For example, one could argue that laws requiring seatbelt use in cars are prudent, but they also reflect a moral position that the state has a right to prevent individuals from having the right to choose to take certain risks with their lives. Once every citizen is required to carry health insurance which will pay for any additional costs of injuries which may be incurred by lack of seat belt use, doesn't the prudence argument diminish significantly or even disappear, and the issue then become purely moral?
Robert wrote: "AI'm just getting lost in all the circuitous discussion...I'm sure it's just me. "It's not just you.
If there is to be any government at all, and I know nobody who truly wants to live in a society with no government at all (no police to call if your neighbor shoots at you, no roads to drive on unless you build them yourself, no money except that printed by private banks or individuals, no limits at all on what companies can charge for electricity or, if you refer to be off the grid, solar panels, no limit on an individual's right to discriminate on any basis they want to, etc.), that government must be paid for somehow. If any taking of any money from anybody is theft, how do people expect government to pay for the services it provides and that virtually everyone agrees that they want?
On a related question, I was for awhile in a business partnership with a man who held very different political views from mine, and during our breaks from work we used to try to find what we could agree on as core services which we would both agree that government ought to provide in today's world. A few were simple: police, fire, courts, roads. Some were more challenging to agree on: free education, parks, minimum wage laws. It was an interesting couple of years!
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "AI'm just getting lost in all the circuitous discussion...I'm sure it's just me. "It's not just you.
If there is to be any government at all, and I know nobody who truly wants to ..."
I'm with you on your general point here. And I have had the same very interesting exploratory questions with friends who are on opposite ends of the spectrum. And I'm also glad you referred to it as a "spectrum", which it clearly is. Many feel that the issues are black or white with no grey, which, to me, is just absurd.
Hi Everyman --Once every citizen is required to carry health insurance which will pay for any additional costs of injuries which may be incurred by lack of seat belt use, doesn't the prudence argument diminish significantly or even disappear, and the issue then become purely moral?
Yes, I think so. Once prudence no longer offers a reason, morality again becomes the only basis on which the government can act. In fact, where it comes to government actions, even laws created out of prudence must eventually have some moral justification.
So what we're asking is what moral basis the government has in the first place to limit our freedom. Here there may be disagreement, because what's in play is where a government gets its authority from in the first place. People will disagree about the answer, but whatever it is, each interpretation has different implications for what a "government mandate" properly entails.
Looking at the source of government authority will help show whether particular restrictions on freedom are just or unjust.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Everyman --Once every citizen is required to carry health insurance which will pay for any additional costs of injuries which may be incurred by lack of seat belt use, doesn't the prudence ...
Yes, I think so. Once prudence no longer offers a reason, morality again becomes the only basis on which the government can act. In fact, where it comes to government actions, even laws created out of prudence must eventually have some moral justification.
So what we're asking is what moral basis the government has in the first place to limit our freedom. Here there may be disagreement, because what's in play is where a government gets its authority from in the first place. People will disagree about the answer, but whatever it is, each interpretation has different implications for what a "government mandate" properly entails.
Looking at the source of government authority will help show whether particular restrictions on freedom are just or unjust. "
A couple of thoughts. There is a specific example here and a general point.
First on the specific example: Please don't be under any illusion that universal insurance coverage diminishes the prudence argument. Insurance does not reduce the cost burden of healthcare on our society - it simply shifts it. Nothing more, nothing less. Any of us may think that this shift is good or bad, but it certainly does not cancel out prudence in any way.
Now the general point: if there is no prudence argument, does the government have a moral basis for protecting us from ourselves?
My answer (I think) would be no, if the basis were purely moral. Some examples:
- Marijuana: it should be legalized just like alchohol. There should be restrictions on its use that prevent me from causing harm to others due to its influence (like alchohol). But there is absolutely no basis, moral or otherwise, for laws which prevent me from sitting in my house and smoking until the cloud is so thick that I can't see the adjacent walls. Just like it is not illegal (as far as I know) for me to sit in my house and drink myself into a drunken stupor, whether or not I am causing liver damage and the inability to function in society.
Sex: is there a moral basis for regulating what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults? not at all. Is there a basis in prudence? Not at all. Therefore, there should be no law.
However...should the government have a legitimate basis for restricting my freedom if giving that freedom carries a reasonable probability that I will cause harm to other innocents? Absolutely...and not based on morality, per se, but on prudence as pertains to a functioning society and quality of life.
Philosophy
Books mentioned in this topic
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (other topics)Law and Social Norms (other topics)
I don't agree. The definition "transfer of wealth means government transfer of wealth" doesn't have any value judgment of assumption within it, any more than does, say, the definition that a circle is a like all points of which are equidistant from a single point.
All logical arguments depend on agreed definitions; one of the main problems with discussion or argumentation comes when people are using the same term to mean different things. A simple definition contains no value judgment.