Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A principled case for property rights?

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:59:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

Actually, in my experience, all arguments for absolutist positions on property rights are from principled or deductive arguments. I just happen not to agree with them.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 10:07:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

No. No one in the comprehensive history of mankind has ever written about property rights, or made any kind of deductive argument to that end. This concept of property rights is entirely new.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 12:11:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

One could argue that Property Rights reduce fighting. Prior, someone could attack you for your land and take it, but now there is a supreme power (government) enforcing your right to that land. It also helps to set up personal space, and set up borders, which is helpful in a crowded community.

One could also say it's natural. Many species get territorial, and protective of area and objects that they adopt as their own. It's common in nature for animals to hold a form of property. They often fight over the property as well. The difference between them and humans is that we have Governments ensure that only the ownership part of property-ownership is allowed, but not the fighting part. (And yes, Governments fight over land a lot. But you can't argue the comparison between the politics of everyday citizens and the politics of Government, they are too different.)

I'm sure there is a counter-argument... And I'm sure those counter-arguments also have plenty of counter-arguments... You wanted an example of an argument, and so I gave you an example to show one does exist, and whether or not I believe the arguments are right isn't something I can decide off my knowledge of the subject. I wasn't giving my opinion of the subject, because that's not what you asked for.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 9:34:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

You can start with Enlightenment philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 9:45:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:07:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

No. No one in the comprehensive history of mankind has ever written about property rights, or made any kind of deductive argument to that end. This concept of property rights is entirely new.

"New" as in 1689?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:13:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 9:45:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:07:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

No. No one in the comprehensive history of mankind has ever written about property rights, or made any kind of deductive argument to that end. This concept of property rights is entirely new.

"New" as in 1689?

I guess you missed the sarcasm in my post.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 8:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:13:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:45:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:07:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

No. No one in the comprehensive history of mankind has ever written about property rights, or made any kind of deductive argument to that end. This concept of property rights is entirely new.

"New" as in 1689?

I guess you missed the sarcasm in my post.

Poe's law
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 8:32:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.

That's a utilitarian answer; but my thinking behind asking for a principled reason is because people like libertarians detest taxes on a principled basis, but if there's no reason for property other than leading to the most productive society, then there's no reason for taxation to be violent, because withholding property could equally be said to be violent. It just becomes a societal agreement based on whatever's most productive rather than a 'right'.

And if your problem is just people stealing your stuff so you can't use it; the problem really could be more specifically defined as some way of behaving; not allowing someone to have the things necessary for their survival, and so on; it doesn't necessitate strict property rights in the capitalist sense.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 1:14:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 8:12:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:13:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:45:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:07:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

No. No one in the comprehensive history of mankind has ever written about property rights, or made any kind of deductive argument to that end. This concept of property rights is entirely new.

"New" as in 1689?

I guess you missed the sarcasm in my post.

Poe's law

It is not my fault that I am an incredibly effective troll.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 1:15:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 1:14:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 8:12:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:13:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:45:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:07:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

No. No one in the comprehensive history of mankind has ever written about property rights, or made any kind of deductive argument to that end. This concept of property rights is entirely new.

"New" as in 1689?

I guess you missed the sarcasm in my post.

Poe's law

It is not my fault that I am an incredibly effective troll.

Or, I suppose it rather is...

It is not my fault that you are unable to distinguish between when I am trolling and when I am not. There is a cause for it, however, and it is not related to me.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:32:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.

That's a utilitarian answer
It's got what to do with the greatest good for the greatest number?

Just how do you define principles anyway? "A rule without a reason?"
And if your problem is just people stealing your stuff so you can't use it; the problem really could be more specifically defined as some way of behaving; not allowing someone to have the things necessary for their survival, and so on; it doesn't necessitate strict property rights in the capitalist sense.
Strict property rights in the capitalist sense are nothing more than a legal abstraction of a value-driven decision about how to behave.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:15:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Addendum: Utilitarianism, too, is a set of principles, though not my set.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 3:15:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Addendum: Utilitarianism, too, is a set of principles, though not my set.

Is that lat name not normally accompanied by Richard or Darkhen
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 9:42:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 3:15:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:32:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.

That's a utilitarian answer
It's got what to do with the greatest good for the greatest number?

Just how do you define principles anyway? "A rule without a reason?"

It is utilitarian because you are suggesting people should respect property rights in order that society does not fall apart. The implication being that if another rule, if adopted would lead to a better result we could adopt that without contradicting your moral framework. A principled justification in this context would entail the morality of the action being contained within the virtue of the action itself.

If not utilitarian it is simply a personal recommendation, in which case, a similar response; if my life could be better improved without respecting property rights there is no implied inherent moral reason to care about them.

The importance of this distinction is that a principled logical extension from human existence to right to property would be necessary for sentiments like 'taxation is theft' to be meaningful, and also for the morality of theft in principle to carry any weight.

And if your problem is just people stealing your stuff so you can't use it; the problem really could be more specifically defined as some way of behaving; not allowing someone to have the things necessary for their survival, and so on; it doesn't necessitate strict property rights in the capitalist sense.
Strict property rights in the capitalist sense are nothing more than a legal abstraction of a value-driven decision about how to behave.

Then people have no necessary 'right' to property, if the rest of society does not want to respect it, right? If not respecting property leads to the higher amount of 'value' (utility,) then that would be the preferable route?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

Since life is not a state but a process, since man can no more sustain himself without food than he can without his organs, the right to property is a corollary - the physical implementation- of the right to life.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:26:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 3:36:49 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/19/2013 3:15:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Addendum: Utilitarianism, too, is a set of principles, though not my set.

Is that lat name not normally accompanied by Richard or Darkhen

Yes. And the first is normally accompanied by Danneskjold.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:48:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 9:42:53 AM, sdavio wrote:
It is utilitarian because you are suggesting people should respect property rights in order that society does not fall apart.
When did I say anything about society, falling apart, or an action being performed by some great beast named "people?"

The implication being that if another rule, if adopted would lead to a better result we could adopt that without contradicting your moral framework.
The implication, in other words, being that my principles are derived with at least one premise consisting of factual statements? THAT implication would be correct, but it's not what the word "utilitarian" means. Leave that word for the ethics of Bentham and Mill. Do you mean consequentialism? Again I ask, what do you mean by principle that has no concern for consequences?

A principled justification in this context would entail the morality of the action being contained within the virtue of the action itself.
What does that even mean? Do you mean by virtue something other than "morality?" I.e. are you speaking of some way for the morality of the action to contain the morality of the action? (Sure, fire contains fire, but by stating it you haven't described fire.) That's not how I use virtue, but how I use the term virtue also doesn't make your sentence coherent so... define virtue, or rephrase.


If not utilitarian it is simply a personal recommendation, in which case, a similar response
I can only recommend things to persons, I have no other audience.

if my life could be better improved without respecting property rights there is no implied inherent moral reason to care about them.
If gravitational attraction could not result in destruction of your body, there would be no reason for me to advise you not to walk off a cliff. But it can. And I do.

The importance of this distinction is that a principled logical extension from human existence to right to property would be necessary for sentiments like 'taxation is theft' to be meaningful
Taxation is taking someone else's property without consent if you're a government. Theft is taking someone else's property without consent. The only meaning "taxation is theft" has or needs-- and it so desperately needs it-- is that you cannot in principle oppose theft unless you oppose taxation.

"and also for the morality of theft in principle to carry any weight.
If you don't steal from me unless I steal from you, and I am a rational being, then, since I don't want to be stolen from, I am incentivized not to steal from you. If whether you steal from me has nothing to do with whether I steal from you, how are you incentivizing me not to still from you?

That's the weight. The weight of whatever you want to produce and keep. The morality of a rational and self-interested being needs no more weight than that, does it? I can only offer you reasons in this world to govern your this worldly behavior. I'm sorry if you expected a morality that applies to ascetics with no nutritional needs as well as one that applies to the self-interested person who enjoys typing that I can guarantee I'm conversing with, but nope. My morality has nothing to offer your Buddha. He has no need of it. You do.

Strict property rights in the capitalist sense are nothing more than a legal abstraction of a value-driven decision about how to behave.

Then people have no necessary 'right' to property
That's what "RIGHT" means. It's necessary if they have those values and live in this universe.

if the rest of society does not want to respect it, right?
Rights are reciprocal. This does not render them not right, it renders those who disrespect them your enemy.

If not respecting property leads to the higher amount of 'value' (utility,) then that would be the preferable route?

See gravity. In this universe, that's not what happens.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 9:49:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:04:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

Since life is not a state but a process, since man can no more sustain himself without food than he can without his organs, the right to property is a corollary - the physical implementation- of the right to life.

So the implication here being, that if a human being requires something to better sustain the process of their life; they should by 'right' be allowed to take it without interference?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 10:11:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 8:48:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Taxation is taking someone else's property without consent if you're a government. Theft is taking someone else's property without consent. The only meaning "taxation is theft" has or needs-- and it so desperately needs it-- is that you cannot in principle oppose theft unless you oppose taxation.

And of what importance is 'consent'? Which in this instance could be translated simply to 'will'. We do things that others would not prefer all the time. Someone might prefer I give them $100, and I do not do so. What is the substantive distinction between that and taking someone's property, since in your characterisation respecting property is 'nothing more' than a consequentialist calculation for greatest personal benefit? In other words, is there a moral reason not to steal?

"and also for the morality of theft in principle to carry any weight.
If you don't steal from me unless I steal from you, and I am a rational being, then, since I don't want to be stolen from, I am incentivized not to steal from you. If whether you steal from me has nothing to do with whether I steal from you, how are you incentivizing me not to still from you?

That's the weight. The weight of whatever you want to produce and keep. The morality of a rational and self-interested being needs no more weight than that, does it? I can only offer you reasons in this world to govern your this worldly behavior. I'm sorry if you expected a morality that applies to ascetics with no nutritional needs as well as one that applies to the self-interested person who enjoys typing that I can guarantee I'm conversing with, but nope. My morality has nothing to offer your Buddha. He has no need of it. You do.

However there is inherent in the thinking of any thief or government other than the most incompetent; the consideration of 'getting away with it.' That is, achieving the act of violating property without it coming back to 'bite you in the *ss,' which pretty much makes your entire objection irrelevant. How is the 'one percent' where they are if disregarding strict property rights offers no personal utility? Why do people engage in theft at all?

If not respecting property leads to the higher amount of 'value' (utility,) then that would be the preferable route?

See gravity. In this universe, that's not what happens.

So no thieves get rich? The government does not exist?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 10:38:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 8:32:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.

That's a utilitarian answer; but my thinking behind asking for a principled reason is because people like libertarians detest taxes on a principled basis, but if there's no reason for property other than leading to the most productive society, then there's no reason for taxation to be violent, because withholding property could equally be said to be violent. It just becomes a societal agreement based on whatever's most productive rather than a 'right'.

And if your problem is just people stealing your stuff so you can't use it; the problem really could be more specifically defined as some way of behaving; not allowing someone to have the things necessary for their survival, and so on; it doesn't necessitate strict property rights in the capitalist sense.

I think the problem with your answer is essentially that you want to take quantification of any sort out of your moral stance on certain affairs, whereas utilitarianism is all about comparing quantities to see what is maximal/optimal, with what is maximal/optimal being moral.

When it comes to taxes, a utilitarian answer that would conform to libertarianism would be that the lower taxes are, assuming everything else is the same, the better. Without such quantification, things become black and white, and such "principles" are simply unrealistic to ever consider. If you don't consider quantities of tax and simply ask "Tax or no tax", then you get absurd scenarios such as "100% tax or 0% tax?", neither of which would be viable in any situation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 11:23:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 10:38:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:32:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.

That's a utilitarian answer; but my thinking behind asking for a principled reason is because people like libertarians detest taxes on a principled basis, but if there's no reason for property other than leading to the most productive society, then there's no reason for taxation to be violent, because withholding property could equally be said to be violent. It just becomes a societal agreement based on whatever's most productive rather than a 'right'.

And if your problem is just people stealing your stuff so you can't use it; the problem really could be more specifically defined as some way of behaving; not allowing someone to have the things necessary for their survival, and so on; it doesn't necessitate strict property rights in the capitalist sense.

I think the problem with your answer is essentially that you want to take quantification of any sort out of your moral stance on certain affairs, whereas utilitarianism is all about comparing quantities to see what is maximal/optimal, with what is maximal/optimal being moral.

When it comes to taxes, a utilitarian answer that would conform to libertarianism would be that the lower taxes are, assuming everything else is the same, the better. Without such quantification, things become black and white, and such "principles" are simply unrealistic to ever consider. If you don't consider quantities of tax and simply ask "Tax or no tax", then you get absurd scenarios such as "100% tax or 0% tax?", neither of which would be viable in any situation.

My point is that, if property rights are simply a quantitative social consideration in order to maximise utility, I don't see how most moralistic justifications of libertarianism stand, with this in consideration, ie 'taxation is theft' or 'government is violence', since the concepts of 'theft' and 'violence' only make sense in relation to property.

Far from trying to remove such quantification, that is precisely what I'm trying to point out, or at least gain clarification on.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 12:04:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 11:23:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/20/2013 10:38:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/19/2013 8:32:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/18/2013 5:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A worse society? What's that? You as an individual should respect the property rights of people who respect yours so you can spend time producing something with an expecatation that it will be there tomorrow, which is pretty essential to your lifestyle as an individual, at least if you enjoy that thing you're typing on.

That's a utilitarian answer; but my thinking behind asking for a principled reason is because people like libertarians detest taxes on a principled basis, but if there's no reason for property other than leading to the most productive society, then there's no reason for taxation to be violent, because withholding property could equally be said to be violent. It just becomes a societal agreement based on whatever's most productive rather than a 'right'.

And if your problem is just people stealing your stuff so you can't use it; the problem really could be more specifically defined as some way of behaving; not allowing someone to have the things necessary for their survival, and so on; it doesn't necessitate strict property rights in the capitalist sense.

I think the problem with your answer is essentially that you want to take quantification of any sort out of your moral stance on certain affairs, whereas utilitarianism is all about comparing quantities to see what is maximal/optimal, with what is maximal/optimal being moral.

When it comes to taxes, a utilitarian answer that would conform to libertarianism would be that the lower taxes are, assuming everything else is the same, the better. Without such quantification, things become black and white, and such "principles" are simply unrealistic to ever consider. If you don't consider quantities of tax and simply ask "Tax or no tax", then you get absurd scenarios such as "100% tax or 0% tax?", neither of which would be viable in any situation.

My point is that, if property rights are simply a quantitative social consideration in order to maximise utility, I don't see how most moralistic justifications of libertarianism stand, with this in consideration, ie 'taxation is theft' or 'government is violence', since the concepts of 'theft' and 'violence' only make sense in relation to property.

Far from trying to remove such quantification, that is precisely what I'm trying to point out, or at least gain clarification on.

Utilizing this kind of language, I think the answer is that "some" "theft/violence" is justifiable. The idea behind this is that as soon as you realize you need to work within a cohesive unit of any sort, you must sacrifice some of your freedoms. For example, you can't occupy the same space the other person is occupying, etc...

Now, if you want to reenact the American frontier mentality, sure, grab your axe, build a log cabin, grow some crops, keep Betsy the cow fed and milked, and keep your powder dry in case any bears come towards you. Don't really need other people, and other people don't really need you, so not much point in paying any taxes. If the Injuns come, then and only then would any of you bother to band together into a ridiculously poorly trained yet still extremely effective militia to fend off people with a ridiculous technological disadvantage.

Anyway, I would agree with you that the moralistic justifications for libertarianism, especially when put in a black/white context, can't stand.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 4:56:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 10:11:29 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/20/2013 8:48:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Taxation is taking someone else's property without consent if you're a government. Theft is taking someone else's property without consent. The only meaning "taxation is theft" has or needs-- and it so desperately needs it-- is that you cannot in principle oppose theft unless you oppose taxation.

And of what importance is 'consent'?
It removes another's problem with taking another's property from them-- their lack of control over their production-- and therefore removes the incentives for a reciprocal prohibition.

Someone might prefer I give them $100, and I do not do so.
There's definitely no reciprocal incentive there.

What is the substantive distinction between that and taking someone's property, since in your characterisation respecting property is 'nothing more' than a consequentialist calculation for greatest personal benefit? In other words, is there a moral reason not to steal?
A conseqentialist moral reason. If you mean something else by morality.. it probably doesn't actually consist of reasons.=

However there is inherent in the thinking of any thief or government other than the most incompetent; the consideration of 'getting away with it.'
The most incompetent governments think that the most actually, and the domains they rule over are poorer in consequence, as the incentives for eliminating them are highest.

That is, achieving the act of violating property without it coming back to 'bite you in the *ss,' which pretty much makes your entire objection irrelevant. How is the 'one percent' where they are if disregarding strict property rights offers no personal utility?
Wait, are you talking about rich people or governments? Most of the top one percent of incomes do not derive their income from a life of crime, or one of taxation receipt.

So no thieves get rich? The government does not exist?
Thieves do not have a rational expectation of becoming richer. Also, "the government" is not an entity. Which person gets to spend that money? Not the IRS man, who makes a fairly middling salary.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 4:58:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
. If you don't consider quantities of tax and simply ask "Tax or no tax", then you get absurd scenarios such as "100% tax or 0% tax?",
You also get user fee alternatives to tax, if you have even a modest amount of creativity.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 5:00:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
some of your freedoms. For example, you can't occupy the same space the other person is occupying, etc...

That's not what "loss of freedom" means. In fact, that's pretty plainly what property rights are.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 5:41:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 4:56:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/20/2013 10:11:29 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/20/2013 8:48:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Taxation is taking someone else's property without consent if you're a government. Theft is taking someone else's property without consent. The only meaning "taxation is theft" has or needs-- and it so desperately needs it-- is that you cannot in principle oppose theft unless you oppose taxation.

And of what importance is 'consent'?
It removes another's problem with taking another's property from them-- their lack of control over their production-- and therefore removes the incentives for a reciprocal prohibition.

It doesn't though; the government taxes me, I do not tax the government; a robber holds up a bank, nobody comes back to his house and robs him..

Someone might prefer I give them $100, and I do not do so.
There's definitely no reciprocal incentive there.

It is a demonstration of how to concept of 'consent' is pretty much arbitrary in this context. Someone may not 'consent' to my taking their property, but since property in your estimation should only be respected to the degree that it promotes maximal personal utility, in the instance that stealing property provides the higher utility I have every 'right' to do so.

What is the substantive distinction between that and taking someone's property, since in your characterisation respecting property is 'nothing more' than a consequentialist calculation for greatest personal benefit? In other words, is there a moral reason not to steal?
A conseqentialist moral reason. If you mean something else by morality.. it probably doesn't actually consist of reasons.=

Okay, but in that case we end up with the moral appeals made by libertarians being irrelevant and the only substantial point of disagreement being a utilitarian decision between systems ending up in providing the higher amount of happiness to the larger number. Property has not been shown as any more necessarily moral than 'theft'.

However there is inherent in the thinking of any thief or government other than the most incompetent; the consideration of 'getting away with it.'
The most incompetent governments think that the most actually, and the domains they rule over are poorer in consequence, as the incentives for eliminating them are highest.

That is, achieving the act of violating property without it coming back to 'bite you in the *ss,' which pretty much makes your entire objection irrelevant. How is the 'one percent' where they are if disregarding strict property rights offers no personal utility?
Wait, are you talking about rich people or governments? Most of the top one percent of incomes do not derive their income from a life of crime, or one of taxation receipt.

They are government subsidized, but I feel like you're missing my broader point. People attain wealth by stealing all the time, I'm not sure why this is even a point of disagreement.

So no thieves get rich? The government does not exist?
Thieves do not have a rational expectation of becoming richer. Also, "the government" is not an entity. Which person gets to spend that money? Not the IRS man, who makes a fairly middling salary.

Of course they have an expectation to become richer, why would they steal otherwise?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 7:18:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 12:04:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Now, if you want to reenact the American frontier mentality, sure, grab your axe, build a log cabin, grow some crops, keep Betsy the cow fed and milked, and keep your powder dry in case any bears come towards you. Don't really need other people, and other people don't really need you, so not much point in paying any taxes. If the Injuns come, then and only then would any of you bother to band together into a ridiculously poorly trained yet still extremely effective militia to fend off people with a ridiculous technological disadvantage.

To be clear, I don't mean to denounce property and society altogether, in favour of whatever you just described lol; I'm simply wondering if the issues I'm currently having with the common justifications for strong libertarianism can be reconciled or not. This reconsideration of property rights has made me reconsider prior assumptions - seeing libertarians not as rejecting the 'god' of government but upholding property as it's own 'god'. Although I'm not sure what the alternative is. So I was wondering if anyone had the kind of strong reasoning for strict property rights which would be necessary for libertarianism to make sense as a morally grounded position, rather than simply an empirical preference. Certainly I'd see the ideas I've alluded to here and even some things conceded by Ragnar (perhaps unintentionally) as pretty much precluding 90% of the libertarian rhetoric.

However I'm unsure if I'm making sense to anyone but myself :P
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 9:42:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 9:49:04 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:04:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:03:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
Does there exist a principled or deductive justification for property? That is, not simply saying in a utilitarian fashion that to not enforce them would lead to a worse society.

Since life is not a state but a process, since man can no more sustain himself without food than he can without his organs, the right to property is a corollary - the physical implementation- of the right to life.

So the implication here being, that if a human being requires something to better sustain the process of their life; they should by 'right' be allowed to take it without interference?

No, that would be subjective. If it is right for someone to acquire property, it is wrong for someone to obstruct that ownership. The right to property is the right to work for one's own self-interest and to benefit from one's own effort. Without the right to property, the chain is broken, and man has no right to sustain his life -- his happiness and survival are gifts that he can never truly obtain. Without property, man would always be at the brink of destruction. Since man's life is his standard of value, it is right for him to further it, which is only possible if he is able to keep the product of his effort.