hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (11/07/85)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > Self-ownership, the view that each human being is the morally > rightful owner of his own person and powers, is a highly debatable > thesis. I haven't time to discuss it now; I will simply note that > one of the battle lines is drawn here. > .... > My argument is that (laissez-faire capitalism) > permits systematic distributive injustice, i.e., it is *based on > theft* (unjust appropriation). It is not a question of random > imperfection, but of systematic blindness to questions about the > moral legitimacy of certain kinds of private property. > .... > (Libertarians) permit the private ownership of WHAT NO ONE HAS A NATURAL > RIGHT TO OWN PRIVATELY, namely the productive resources that we need to > live. The ownership of these resources was originally acquired unjustly, > by the theft of what was jointly owned (or perhaps owned by no one). I take exception to the assertion that advocates of Capitalism suffer from "a systematic blindness to questions about the moral legitimacy of certain kinds of private property". I, for one, am as certain of the (moral) proposition that "each human being is morally the rightful owner of his own person and powers" as it is possible for a human being to be. One of the battle lines is indeed drawn here, since it is one the basis of this proposition that I am opposed to government as an agent of re-distribution of property, except when adjudicating specific disputes about the rightful ownership of specific goods. If I understand him correctly, Carnes objects to two libertarian positions in particular: (1) In cases in which no individual living today can prove the validity of his personal claim to a property (as in cases of property stolen a very long time ago), and in which current ownership is not the result of a specific, proven felony, Libertarians tend to oppose redistribution (even though the current owner's title may not be beyond question). (2) Libertarians hold that the conversion into individual property (through use or trade) of things not previously owned by anyone is an instance of productive creation of wealth (rather than "theft"). The manner in which the first of these positions follows from self-ownership is fairly straightforward. For if one is the rightful owner of one's own person and powers, than one is also the rightful owner of anything produced by one's person and powers, or obtained in voluntary exchange for the services or products of one's person. But if such ownership is rightful, then it is wrong to deny anyone the ownership of what he or she has produced, or obtained directly or indirectly through voluntary transactions with the producer(s). Thus one should not be able to terminate a person's ownership of anything in the absence of PROOF that such ownership is NOT the result of production and voluntary exchange. Position (1) above is a special case of this principle. A possible objection to position (1) is that if the current owner can continue ownership without being required to prove that his ownership is legitimate, some people will enjoy things they have not earned, and this is unjust. Note, however, that justice (dealing with each person as he or she deserves to be dealt with) and freedom (maximizing the individual's control, or effective ownership, over his or her own person and powers) are two different moral values. The Libertarian's preference for maximizing freedom rather than justice is hardly "blindness to moral questions". Position (2) above hinges on the nature of value, and on the specific process through which things acquire value, i.e. become wealth. This is a more complex question, and I will deal with it in a separate posting. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)