Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Sep '10 18:55
    From the discussion in the Tea Party thread where some posters were not familiar with "left libertarianism":

    Equal share left-libertarianism—advocated, for example, by Henry George (1879) and Hillel Steiner (1994)—interprets the Lockean proviso as requiring that one leave an equally valuable share of natural resources for others. Individuals are morally free to use or appropriate natural resources, but those who use or appropriate more than their per capita share owe others compensation for their excess share.

    Even equal share libertarianism, one might argue, is not sufficiently egalitarian. Although it requires that the competitive value of natural resources be distributed equally, it does nothing to offset disadvantages in unchosen internal endowments (e.g., the effects of genes or childhood environment). Equal share libertarianism is thus compatible with radically unequal life prospects.[4]

    Consider, then, equal opportunity left-libertarianism advocated, for example, by Otsuka (2003).[5] It interprets the Lockean proviso as requiring that one leave enough for others to have an opportunity for well-being that is at least as good as the opportunity for well-being that one obtained in using or appropriating natural resources. Individuals who leave less than this are required to pay the full competitive value of their excess share to those deprived of their fair share. Unlike the equal share view, those whose initial internal endowments provide less favorable effective opportunities for well-being are entitled to larger shares of natural resources. Although this version of libertarianism is highly egalitarian, it limits the egalitarianism to the distribution of the value of the natural resources. Full self-ownership still places constraints on the promotion of equality: Individuals are not morally required to provide personal services or body parts merely because they have more valuable personal endowments

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#2

    Essentially, it's libertarians who take the Lockean proviso seriously. I would add that anthropological evidence also severely undercuts claims that in our "natural state" any individual was able to expropriate natural resources to any significant degree.

    Comments?
  2. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    21 Sep '10 19:02
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    From the discussion in the Tea Party thread where some posters were not familiar with "left libertarianism":

    Equal share left-libertarianism—advocated, for example, by Henry George (1879) and Hillel Steiner (1994)—interprets the Lockean proviso as requiring that one leave an equally valuable share of natural resources for others. Individuals are moral ...[text shortened]... able to expropriate natural resources to any significant degree.

    Comments?
    Some of the words the left have tried to twist, obfuscate and redefine so as to hide their true agenda:

    Free
    Freedom
    Rights
    Ownership

    Now the word libertarian is under attack, but only form No1, so no worries eh.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Sep '10 19:05
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Some of the words the left have tried to twist, obfuscate and redefine so as to hide their true agenda:

    Free
    Freedom
    Rights
    Ownership

    Now the word libertarian is under attack, but only form No1, so no worries eh.
    You don't even know what the "Lockean proviso" is, do you?

    You are very generous to give to me credit for creating an intellectual viewpoint that has existed for hundreds of years and spawned many books and scholarly articles.
  4. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    21 Sep '10 19:10
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Some of the words the left have tried to twist, obfuscate and redefine so as to hide their true agenda:

    Free
    Freedom
    Rights
    Ownership

    Now the word libertarian is under attack, but only form No1, so no worries eh.
    This seems less a departure from the historical roots of the term than the current identification of libertarianism with laissez-faire, free market economics.
  5. 21 Sep '10 19:17 / 4 edits
    No1's "true agenda" is actually quite clear -- he wants a society in which everyone is able to meet their basic needs and live a life that's worth living - and if that means using force against people's liberty and property to some extent, then so be it.

    Wajoma's "true agenda" is also quite clear -- he wants a society in which everyone's life and property is completely protected from the use of force - and if that means that some people won't be able to meet their basic needs, then so be it.

    While both No1 and Wajoma would agree that liberty is a very good thing in of itself and they both would agree that it's a very good thing for people to be able to meet their needs, there's a major difference when they are required to choose which value is more important. And I don't know if there's any way to convince either side to change their value system.
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    21 Sep '10 19:22 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It interprets the Lockean proviso as requiring that one leave enough for others to have an opportunity for well-being that is at least as good as the opportunity for well-being that one obtained in using or appropriating natural resources. Individuals who leave less than this are required to pay the full competitive value of their excess share to those deprived of their fair share. Unlike the equal share view, those whose initial internal endowments provide less favorable effective opportunities for well-being are entitled to larger shares of natural resources.


    Sounds like having your libertarian cake and eating it too.
  7. 21 Sep '10 19:24
    The communist (or socialist if you like, makes little difference to me) libertarian. Got it.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    21 Sep '10 19:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    No1's "true agenda" is actually quite clear -- he wants a society in which everyone is able to meet their basic needs and live a life that's worth living - and if that means using force against people's liberty and property to some extent, then so be it.

    Wajoma's "true agenda" is also quite clear -- he wants a society in which everyone's life and prope on't know if there's any way to convince either side to change their value system.
    if that means using force against people's liberty and property to some extent, then so be it.

    NO. Property ownership as recognized in law today is not legitimate property ownership as per the right to property. That's the whole point of left-libertarianism. If an "illegal immigrant" sleeps in your backyard in Arizona, it's NOT trespassing. To remove him at gunpoint is to use government gunmen to enforce the theft of land and deny raw resources - which cannot be legitimately owned unless there is a vast surplus of them - to this person, VIOLATING his Right to Earn Property and Right to His Ancestor's Property (the latter is one that many conservatives bring up when whining about the "death tax" but they misrepresent it out of greed and ignorance).
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    21 Sep '10 19:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Sounds like having your libertarian cake and eating it too.
    Isn't it great? The Framers were brilliant men.
  10. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    21 Sep '10 19:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The communist (or socialist if you like, makes little difference to me) libertarian. Got it.
    Haha, yep, he hasn't even done a good job of dressing it up.
  11. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    21 Sep '10 19:28
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Isn't it great? The Framers were brilliant men.
    The Framers? Hahaha, I'm sure they all read Otsuka before going to bed.
  12. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    21 Sep '10 19:29
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    No1's "true agenda" is actually quite clear -- he wants a society in which everyone is able to meet their basic needs and live a life that's worth living - and if that means using force against people's liberty and property to some extent, then so be it.

    Wajoma's "true agenda" is also quite clear -- he wants a society in which everyone's life and prope ...[text shortened]... on't know if there's any way to convince either side to change their value system.
    Your characterization of No1's position is question-begging. The Lockean Proviso does not tell us when it is O.K. to violate property rights; it tells us when an acquisition of material from the world counts as an acquisition of property. If one initially acquires too much, the remainder is not property.
  13. 21 Sep '10 19:35
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    From the discussion in the Tea Party thread where some posters were not familiar with "left libertarianism":

    Equal share left-libertarianism—advocated, for example, by Henry George (1879) and Hillel Steiner (1994)—interprets the Lockean proviso as requiring that one leave an equally valuable share of natural resources for others. Individuals are moral ...[text shortened]... able to expropriate natural resources to any significant degree.

    Comments?
    left-libertarianism is kind of a confusing term -- perhaps a better word could be used to describe what George & Steiner are proposing.

    it would be best to define libertarianism as: getting as close to anarchy as possible without actually having anarchy. The libertarians can then argue amongst themselves about when it is that this point is being reached.
  14. 21 Sep '10 19:40
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Your characterization of No1's position is question-begging. The Lockean Proviso does not tell us when it is O.K. to violate property rights; it tells us when an acquisition of material from the world counts as an acquisition of property. If one initially acquires too much, the remainder is not property.
    okay -- to restate it:

    No1 believes that there exists a point when a person can acquire "too much property" - because it interferes with the effort to create a society in which everyone is able to meet their needs.

    Wajoma believes that no such point exists, there's no such thing as having "too much property" - because the right to property is absolute even if that right creates a society in which some people cannot meet their needs.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Sep '10 19:58
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    From the discussion in the Tea Party thread where some posters were not familiar with "left libertarianism":

    Equal share left-libertarianism—advocated, for example, by Henry George (1879) and Hillel Steiner (1994)—interprets the Lockean proviso as requiring that one leave an equally valuable share of natural resources for others. Individuals are moral ...[text shortened]... able to expropriate natural resources to any significant degree.

    Comments?
    Well, they can call that philosophy what they like, but it seems to me to fly in the face of everything every prominent libertarian believes and says regarding economic policy today. It seems to me like liberalism on steroids; and not Andy Pettitte steroids; I mean Barry Bonds steroids.

    I suppose it's as valid a philosophy as any, though I see little point in calling it libertarianism.

    Individuals who leave less than this are required to pay the full competitive value of their excess share to those deprived of their fair share.


    So, you can earn more than others by working harder. You just can't keep it.

    Although this version of libertarianism is highly egalitarian, it limits the egalitarianism to the distribution of the value of the natural resources.


    What is a "natural resource"? Sure not simply the minerals and oil that exists under the ground of a given society. I wonder how one would define natural resources in a modern society.