Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Libertarianism as ideology (reply to Richard C.) Message-ID: <1450@dciem.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 18:01:53 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1450 Posted: Fri Mar 8 18:01:53 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Mar-85 20:53:44 EST References: <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 47 Summary: >>characterized by class domination. The power of government to tax is >>a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the >>"rights" (really privileges) of property. > >Why is property a "privilege", but free speech and freedom of thought a >right? The state (or the people, or society) does not bestow upon its >citizens the "privilege" of prperty any more than it bestows upon them >the "privilege" of ownership of their minds and bodies. What's the >difference? To the libertarian, none. JoSH once distinguished between "libertarian" and "propertarian". I think here we have a "propertarian" talking. If you can't see the difference between ownership of one's mind and body and ownership of other things, it is going to be hard to discuss anything having an ethical basis. Most libertarians seem able to make the distinction, the distinction you say doesn't exist. To me, there are many admirable things about libertarian objectives and ideals, but I find the "Grab,grab,hold,hold" ideology to be almost obscene. My objections to libertarianism are largely (as I conceive them) practical, in that I think the ideas would never work in practice. My objections to propertarianism are fundamental and deep. I abhore and abjure the philosophy that you have any inalienable right to refuse other people the use of anything other than your person. Some things are more reasonably held by one person or a particular group, some are not; which things come under which classification depends on circumstances (including culture). It is of practical benefit that people should control much of the fruits of their labour. It is more practical that they be given a token in exchange for those fruits, a token that they can exchange for something else they want. It is more practical because that way the labour of many people can be combined effectively and substantial things produced that could not be produced by individuals. But never could these things be done without the assistance, visible or ignored, of a huge range of other people (society). You take the benefit of their labour whether you want to or not. You have no right to keep for yourself all the benefits of your labour, and if you are so selfish as to wish to do so, society has the right to trample you until you squeal. That, too, is practical. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt