wfl@maxvax.UUCP (w linke) (07/10/85)
>> >From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) >> >Not even Communist societies prevent >> >individuals from producing all the widgets they want in their own >> >homes. >> >> From Michael Sykora: >> You've GOT to be joking -- not even Communist societies? >> Our own society has passed numerous laws against working at home. >Our society has created numerous laws against working at home >*for profit or exchange* NOT for one's own use. >My point was that no society, including >Communist societies have laws against creating products for *one's >own use* (unless such products themselves are banned e.g. guns and drugs). >This is the Robinson Crusoe model of society and the economy: the >rugged individualist producing all her/his own goods. Whether or not a Communist government forbids private production per se is irrelevant, because individuals are denied the fundamental right of private property. With resources owned by the state, private production of any significance must be viewed as depriving the state factories of raw materials, thereby injuring "the people" for the benefit of an individual. Furthermore, if by chance someone did create something useful, he has no right to control its use (which is the essence of property rights). For example, if a serf on a collective farm wants to build a tractor, by what means could the necessary steel and tools be obtained? And if he somehow did manage to produce a tractor, will he have the right to claim it for *his own use* while his neighbors still use oxen? >But this hardly covers any of our actual economic life, particularly >in our increasingly interdependent society. True, but this interdependence is in large part the *result* of the fact that we are still in a large measure free to take care of ourselves. There is a direct relationship from the fact that farmers in this country are free to build their own tractors to the fact that most don't do so because lots of good quality tractors are manufactured and sold. If this is not clear, remember that our interdependence (i.e., "division of labor") is *voluntary* at its core; a farmer depends on the manufacturer not because he has no alternatives, but because he thinks he will make more profit and/or enjoy life more than if he builds his own tractors. The less voluntary the economic system, the more incompatible it is with a division of labor - other than between masters and slaves. Examine the division of labor in any Marxist country, and find the the majority of the population scraping away at the most basic job in civilization: raising food. (And they still starve!) >Almost all current economic life involves *relations of exchange with others*. >Therefore it is not simply one individual involved but a social relation >between individuals. >As a social relation between individuals the members of society have >the right to decide that certain relations should be regulated to insure >*protection of all individuals rights*. >Most people would agree that murder is an unacceptable social relation. >Most people would also agree that people should not be exposed to >potentially fatal risks at their job unless they are very clear about >such risks. >Most people would agree that workers should not be subject to arbitrary >punishment at work without the possibility of lodging greivances. >The capability to lodge grievances against the caprice of managers >who simply take a personal dislike to somebody is an important >*protection* of individual rights made possible by the labor union >movement. >These advances were hardly an infringement of freedom but an >advance towards protecting individual's rights in the very important >social relation of employer-employee. The end of this line of thought is that being murdered is "an unacceptable social relation", just like working in a non-union shop! You may be correct in your estimation of what most people would agree with. But what does that have to do with rights? If the majority felt that murder was acceptable, would we lose our right to life? Man's Rights, as understood by the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, are the political implementations of moral principles and as such are inalienable - my life can be taken, but not my right to it. This is the canonical philosophical definition of "rights" (at least in the U.S.); if you disagree with it then say so explicitly before using the term. The social view of rights as being whatever the majority wants is actually an attack on the concept of rights (and on morality). You state "the members of society have the *right* to decide ... to regulate ..." (italics mine). What gives them this right? The fact that the majority thinks they should have it? A circular definition is a dirty weapon. >The irony is that Libertarians wish to remove these rights in the >name of freedom and liberty! > > tim sevener whuxl!orb P.S. I am not a Libertarian. W. F. Linke