mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/25/85)
Lines marked with one '>' are those of Walter Wego. Lines marked with two are apparently those of JoSH. Lines marked '>>>' are from a posting of mine. >Jeff Sonntag already wrote a good reply to an article which criticized >mine. Here's what I have to add. > >>I disagree with the derivation of property rights from non-agression >>principles (even though it is quite logically consistent); [rather, >>JoSH suggests doing it the other way around; thus he calls himself >>"propertarian" (vs. "libertarian") to highlight this difference] >>--JoSH > >I think JoSH's suggestion is a bad one just because I think non-aggression >principles are more compelling as a starting point. Also because non- >aggression principles imply quite specific conclusions about property >rights; so if you deny those conclusions you would also have to deny the >principles. Hopefully you wouldn't do that lightly. One cannot use the concept of 'aggression' without (implicitly or explicitly) using that of 'property', and vice versa. It may be more compelling to talk of aggression without intially explicitly talking of property, but is it wise to exploit (and, I think, thereby promote) fuzzy-headedness? >DKMcK writes: >>Some time ago [...] I posted: >>>In a Free Economy, the following rules are observed: >>> Each person is initially sole owner of himself. >>> Unowned resources may be acquired by taking possession of them and >>> putting them to productive use. > >I disagree with the last sentence if it is supposed that using unowned >resources always and automatically implies acquiring ownership. In my last >article I explained that only abundant resources can be acquired simply by >putting them into use. You may have DECLARED such a thing, but it cannot be EXPLAINED on the basis of Libertarian principle (and, in fact, I am convinced that it cannot be justified at all). Send me (at cbosgd!dlm, NOT ratex!mck) a copy of what you think to be such an explanation, and I will post its gaps and/or errors. > (This was the 3rd of 3 methods I described whereby >an object can first become owned.) For scarce resources, the situation is >more complicated; just using them does not give ownership. Virtually all resources are scarce, and there is little point in having property in those which are not. If we declare that: What is scarce cannot be property, then no one can establish claim to many of the things which are necessary for life. > Suppose Alpha >makes a statue out of (previously unowned and unused) gold. Does Beta >have an obligation to let Alpha keep the statue, if gold is scarce and >Beta wants to use it for something else? I think not. Beta has an >obligation to avoid unnecessary interference with Alpha's activities and >goals, but Beta need not accept interfence with *his* (Beta's) activities >by Alpha. By taking the gold (which Beta would have found and been able >to use the next day, had it not been for Alpha), Alpha is inflicting as >much harm on Beta as Beta would be doing if he took the statue and melted >it down. The situation is symmetric: each gets his preferred use only >by making the other worse off. Therefore, neither one has an obligation >to concede the object, they can legitimately compete over its use. If we accepted that each member of Mankind has an equal claim to that which is scarce, then your conclusion might well follow. I reject such a notion, in that it logically leads (by virtue of the scarcity of many resources) to a Hobbesian State of Nature in which each is continually at the mercy of another. >--the TRUE libertarian, Walter Wego Your position is clearly within the tradition of Classical Liberalism, and it can probably be well argued to be Libertarian; however, it is neither typical nor definitive. A TRUE Libertarian, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan Arguing in netnews is like battling the Hydra!
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Walter Wego sponsor) (05/30/85)
[Since esk@wucs has gone, I'm Walter Wego's new sponsor --pvt] DKMcK writes: >One cannot use the concept of 'aggression' without (implicitly or explicitly) >using that of 'property', and vice versa. It may be more compelling to talk >of aggression without intially explicitly talking of property, but is it wise >to exploit (and, I think, thereby promote) fuzzy-headedness? I don't see how 'aggression' implicitly assumes a concept of 'property' except perhaps in a trivial sense, in which my right not to be aggressed against implies that my body can be called my "property". The reason I seek to derive property rights from non-aggression principles is that the latter are more easily seen to be justified. Although in a sense you could call non-aggression principles "property rights principles", they enjoy wider appeal than most (other) concepts of property rights. It is too question-begging to start with a whole plethora of property rights -- non-libertarians will not be moved. > Send me (at cbosgd!dlm, NOT ratex!mck) a copy of what you think to > be such an explanation, and I will post its gaps and/or errors. OK. > Virtually all resources are scarce, and there is little point in having > property in those which are not. If we declare that: What is scarce cannot > be property, then no one can establish claim to many of the things which are > necessary for life. That is not what I declare, as you will see when you get my essay. > > Suppose Alpha > >makes a statue out of (previously unowned and unused) gold. > > By taking the gold (which Beta would have found and been able > >to use the next day, had it not been for Alpha), Alpha is inflicting as > >much harm on Beta as Beta would be doing if he took the statue and melted > >it down. The situation is symmetric: each gets his preferred use only > >by making the other worse off. Therefore, neither one has an obligation > >to concede the object, they can legitimately compete over its use. > If we accepted that each member of Mankind has an equal claim to that which > is scarce, then your conclusion might well follow. I reject such a notion, > in that it logically leads (by virtue of the scarcity of many resources) to > a Hobbesian State of Nature in which each is continually at the mercy of > another. It is at best an exaggeration to call my conclusions Hobbesian. I do not stipulate that each person "has an equal claim" to that which is scarce; I do not assume them to have any *claim-rights* in the matter at all. I simply acknowledge that removing a scarce resource from circulation does as much to interfere with the activity of others, as does taking it from someone who is already using it. (Actually, I have oversimplified a little here, by ignoring the improvements on the resource. However, in my example of the gold statue, there were no improvements, at least in Beta's eyes.) >>--the TRUE libertarian, Walter Wego > A TRUE Libertarian, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan Just scratching my itch to offend! --THE ... wALTER wEGO