The utilitarian lure and trap of political argument (esp. within libertarianism)

From where did this topic originate? What debates were you watching? I'm interested because I don't recognize this.. And how are we supposed to argue against this point when the example debates are structured in advance?

 

If the majority of people want them, then there will be demand, and someone will fill that demand.

 

But then you must see that it is not a simple process of building a holding facility and getting prisoners. You would need to get a hold of those who have committed crimes, those who have wronged others. The act of building a jail is an act of charity to the common people. With a jail maintained voluntarily, you would have more people dealing with those that have wronged our society. In itself, it is an act of justifiably "good" charity. You may think of it as a big deed, or if you act on it than you would be a hated amongst some groups. But large sacrifices must be made to create a "better" society.

Now, as for charities, that would be more difficult. No one would see the true use of it and would most likely hold onto their own valuables. But,i said it once and i'll say it again, it is a great act of charity to MAKE a charity. The only problem being is gaining trust and using it to help others.

Now, back onto the issue at hand. Sythe,i see your argument for how the Libertarian should approach said argument. But how is the Libertarian system the system of life in the eyes of the beholder. The realization of the fact that the poor will starve and that people might (and most likely will) die shows that they believe in a system where common folk can die. Yes, self-sacrifice is overall a much worse tactic, but i do not see the "life" behind letting others die.

 

The moral system which today's breed of Libertarianism adhere to is extremely brutal. The poor starve and the rich prosper in a world without collective responsibility. The end result is that private tyrannies create huge monopolies and private ownership itself (or the lack thereof) restricts the majority's freedom.

 

Elsewhere you claim that you are proponent of libertarianism, which is, apparently, the equivalent to 19th Century liberalism. If you think you are doing the work of Mill (for a start, Mill, who was essentially an arch classic liberal was also a utilitarian) and Gladstone, then you are clearly very much mistaken; what you advocate is not classic liberalism or libertarianism as I would know it. Liberalism is about freedom, and yet you don't advocate freedom. You advocate the strong imposing their power over the weak, is that your definition of freedom?

You say:

No true liberal would agree with you. For in doing so this promotes the idea that human beings have no fundamental right to life - to deserve to perish means by definition you do not have a right to live. With that there is a dissolving of all other rights. Essentially, under this system there are no rights.

Your argument is that we should leave those, including the disabled, to death in the name of freedom. If that's your definition of freedom, then keep it, I want no part in it.

You argue that the existence of state is different to the existence of ownership because the state, as a body, does not own anything. All its actions are simply a majority acting against the rights of the minority, and thus it is seen as not legitimate. The problem here is that without a state in existence, the rights of the minority cannot be defended against the opinion of the majority any better than if a state merely acts for the majority's interests. In this way, I would argue that rather than being a contradiction in terms, anarcho capitalism is simply defending the rights of the majority to rule over the minority; something it seeks to, ultimately, discourage.

And what of the people who might wish to sell themselves into slavery? Surely that is a "freedom" that should be allowed to occur?

 

That's actually not the argument. The argument is that you have no right to force another, against their will, to provide for the survival of another. And of course you don't have that right! Do you really think that you have the moral authority to walk up to me, and legitimately take a portion of MY MONEY, that I earned with no help from you? Whatever your noble intentions may be, theft is theft, and that's what you advocate.

 

I've been unable to find any respected libertarian/liberal/anarcho-capitalist theorist or philosopher who takes the ideology to such extreme and brutal lengths. I think that you or Sythe would be singing a different tune if either of you happened to be old, disabled or in dire poverty yourselves, and you're arguing safe in the knowledge that you wouldn't be the immediate victims of your dystopian vision.

Here is a list of prominent contributors to libertarian/liberal theory who would disagree with you:

Wikipedia - List of Liberal Theorists

 

Well, if we were in such dire straits, we probably wouldn't have an unbiased perspective. Of course, I don't argue from the perspective of a poor person, or a multimillionaire. I argue from the "veil of ignorance", using just logic to determine what the most rational system would be.

 

But it goes deeper than that. Your argument is that no one has a right to life. Without that right, the existence of all other rights is brought into question. Why is the right to property so inalienable according to you, and yet the right to life is seen as secondary?

You speak of morals; but what gives you the moral authority to tell others that they have no rights? Is that truly morally?

You propose that no one can impose on another without the first person's consent, but then what about actions like suicide - these actions create feelings of depression within others. That means that you have imposed upon others because of your actions, so surely suicide, and indeed anything that imposes similarily on people, should be deemed illegal?

Theft might well be theft. But under your system, you need to tell me why theft is wrong at all. Because this ultra "liberal" system which you advocate essentially is the suspension of belief in rights, and without rights, how can theft be deemed immoral?

 

They have a right to life insofar that they will not be denied their life. They're free to live as they wish without infringing upon the rights of others. However, if they need to steal to stay alive, then this is unacceptable. Is denying them the right to steal denying them the right to life? No, it is self-defense. Your life is not my concern. My life is my concern.

The right to self-governance overrides what might sadden others.

There are still rights, namely, the right to life, property, self-governing, etc.

 

Who says, and who determines that?

Essentially, you have done nothing to prove as to why any of these rights you claim exist, do exist. What evidence do you have that they should exist.

If that's freedom, then I am glad the human race remain in "slavery".

 

It's basically natural law. Humans are individualistic creatures, and we need certain things to survive. If I have a plot of land, and I work hard to produce food from it, then by the virtue of my labor, I own that food.

Of course, you could treat all of humanity as one hive, counting each human as merely a cell with no rights, but naturally, we are not like that. We are more individualistic than we are social.

You're free to help the poor all you want, but what on earth makes you think you can walk up to me, strip me of one third of my wealth by the force of your gun, and redistribute it as you see fit?

 

I do not accept the existence of such a law. You have not proven it exists.

Indeed, we are individualistic creatures. And so, without a state, we would live in caves fighting one another - a war of all against all. You have shown by your willingness to claim that those who would die in such a situation deserve to prove more than anything that institutions much exist if we are ever to develop from a situation where we all fight one another for food and ownership.

Ownership, by its very nature, is merely a legal concept. To argue that it is some nature right is unproven.

When has this happened to you?

 

It stems from a very fundamental aspect of human nature. Humans tend to focus on themselves before others, we tend to find one mate, live with them, and produce children, we tend to own land, etc. We are not commune-dwellers, we are land-owners. We are not sharers, we are individualists.

Society doesn't require a state to exist.

I argue that forcibly taking wealth for the purposes of keeping others alive is immoral. Perhaps this month, I need to save up because my son is in the hospital, and money is tight. In fact, it doesn't even matter what I need it for. I earned it, it's mine.

Besides, where's the incentive to work harder if we don't even own our own produce? Sure, you can can go on about wanting to work to improve humanity, but in reality, that's not going to motivate a whole lot of people.

It hasn't happened yet, because I prefer to pay money to the government rather than be actually locked away for years of my life.

 

The reason we act in this way is not innate nature, it is based on complex psychological developments which have occurred because of the development of ideas of morality. There is no evidence to suggest that before it was considered immoral to have many "mates" human kind only had one mate, and in cultures where no precedence is given to such a state of affairs, we find that people do not have one mate. In short, what you describe is a product of the development of civilisation, and not evolutionary.

We tend to own land only because that has been instilled into us because of thousands of years where the concept of ownership exists. Where's the evidence that this is an innate product of humanity's evolution, and not due to psychological development and instillation of morality?

That does not prove that there are natural laws, and of what these law constitute.

Society is different from the state, that much is certain. That does not mean that you can stop a war against all without the existence of a state.

You might argue it, but that doesn't mean it is immoral, nor have you proven that to be the case.

This is simply a fallacy, a product of your belief in the nature of political thought. To you, anyone who is not an ultra libertarian is ultimately "collectivist". But that's nonsense. You are right to say that if the state owns everything, and takes all, then there is no incentive to work harder. But that's not what I advocate. I advocate that the state takes as little as possible, but at the same time provides welfare to those who need it. It's a balance, not a form of boolean logic. Thatcher, for example, abhorred collectivism, but would not believe in your system, for good reason.

 

Minus careful psychological conditioning, it is indeed our natural tendency.

We own land because that is the way that humans are. Generally, when we mark off a piece of land that nobody previously owned,so that we may work, and life off it, we instinctively consider that to be our land. If I own a farm, and plant wheat, and I grow a field full of wheat, I am the only one who has worked for that. Nobody else has worked for it, so they have no claim to it.

It proves that we are inherently self-concerned.

It's not a war against all. I am not responsible for others unless I enter into a contract with them.

Here I am, a wheat farmer. I have just produced a large amount of wheat. I produced it using no slave labor, but only contracted employees. Now, here you are, knocking on my door. You demand a certain portion of my wheat. I ask why. You say that it's for those who have nothing. I demand to know what right you have to force me to give you wheat, and why I am morally responsible for those who have nothing.

An interesting question, actually. Why am I morally responsible for them?

Well why am I responsible for those who have nothing in the first place?

 

Where's the evidence for that assertion? You're proving nothing, and yet asserting more and more all the time. Until you start proving things, I cannot accept your analysis.

If I do work on a rock, do I then own that rock because my effort, and no one else's, has gone into moving it?

There is no evidence that ownership is anything other than a concept created by society.

What I would question is why you have the right to the wheat. You have done no work to get it, by your own admission, you have used employees to do the work. Why do you have any right to the wheat in this primitive system of working? Surely the concept of ownership, as you define it, works on the principle of those who do the work, get the rewards. You have done no work, and got the rewards. Is that moral under your concept?

But it is a war against all. Your whole concept is that we are not responsible for one another. If that is the case, what is to stop people fighting over a limited amount of resources? What stops the war of all against all?

We all have rights and responsibilities. That is inherent to being human. If we look at it from a Kantian perspective we cannot all live in a situation where we advocate no one is responsible for another because that would belie the concept of selfishness - selfishness can only function because of a level of kindness exists. We must respect one another's moral agency if we are to have our own respected. Therefore, we are morally responsible for one another to a point. We are not responsible for the actions of others. But we do have a responsibility to ensure we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.