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