Help cure my libertarian ideals

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yov, do you recall Katrina? The disproportional effect that that natural disaster had on poor people and minorities (primarily African-Americans) was certainly "unjust".

[River]

This is something of a drive-by. I'm not even going to apologize since less might be more.

Yov, you posted the following in response to a post by Frelga. You quoted the first half of her post.

This is...a compelling line of reason. I do note that when you say "there is a duty" what you seem to mean is "there is a forced requirement". Two very different ideas to my mind. You're saying that given the violent past of property, the use of some force to address some current inequalities is just. I do think that this is a point worth considering, definitely, and I will indeed be pondering it, but I think it's important to make it clear that we're talking about force and not moral duty

You missed this part, the actual consequence of choosing to ignore or discard a moral duty because it seems to much like force (bolding is mine).

That is also the pragmatic course. The alternative, tilting the playing field until all the chips end up in one corner, tends to end in violent redistribution, and that's no fun for anyone.

In other words, something's got to give. If you let people get hungry, if you stomp on them too hard, they rebel. And then they use force. And the ones holding all the chips respond with force. The history books can tell you all about it. So...ruffled feathers or bloodbath?

Regarding the feeling of injustice following a natural disaster, there're a couple things that cause that. One is the socioeconomic aspects of who gets more impacted. Maybe the poorer people were living on the floodplain. Or they couldn't evacuate because they couldn't afford transit. Or they lived in shoddily constructed homes that crumbled when the ground began to shake. Or the less wealthy weren't necessarily more harmed than the wealthy but they don't have the resources to rebuild or rebuild as quickly. There is also just human psychology. You did what was in your power and what you understood to be required to protect yourself from Nature's fury and she got you anyway. It's not unlike the rage one feels in the face of a lousy medical diagnosis even though you've taken responsibility for your health. Bad things happen. You don't deserve them. But I can tell you from personal experience that, when a disaster you either thought you were safe from or thought wouldn't actually happen ends up causing you or a loved one harm...it hurts. A lot. And that's got nothing to do with political philosophy.

The disproportionate effects of a disaster on socioeconomic classes that I mentioned in the first half of the above paragraph, though, do have a lot to do with political philosophy. In fact, depending on the implementation of a favored philosophy, you may be faced with a secondary man-made disaster during and after the natural one.

And finally, Prim, you said something about people spilling coffee on their Bibles. I happen to know that coffee stains are not opaque. I think what happens is people just opt to ignore the teachings that make them uncomfortable and cling to the ones that make them feel good or more secure in their own personal beliefs and behavior patterns. This behavior is not limited to any particular religion or moral philosophy and certainly isn't uniformly endorsed by thinkers and leaders. It's just people being people.

[yovargas]

You missed this part, the actual consequence of choosing to ignore or discard a moral duty because it seems to much like force (bolding is mine).

That is also the pragmatic course. The alternative, tilting the playing field until all the chips end up in one corner, tends to end in violent redistribution, and that's no fun for anyone.

I purposefully ignored that because there is by no means universal agreement that this is the only alternative. That's a question of economics and there are lots of theories out there as to what causes what when where how and why, and it's way out of the scope of what this thread's about.

[River]

In that case I shall slink back under my rock.

[Nin]

Yov, like many others I have very little time (graduations are about to come, busy times for teachers), but for the moment I'd only say that despite being clearly non-christian in a religious way, I'd state that property means moral duties (for me) and that being rich implies (for me) a moral duty towards the poor. I built my view of the world and morality on Kant, at least how I understood him and a lot of it boils down to: Always act in a way that, if everybody acted like you, the world would be a safe and meaningful place.

But I have very little time (also neurologist appointment this week and by far not everything is going well in that regard), as well to read as well as to answer, despite the interest.

[yovargas]

Thanks, Nin, I get that, I really do, but what I'm really getting at is if, or how, the idea that "property means moral duties (for me) and that being rich implies (for me) a moral duty towards the poor" can be compatible with the idea I posted in the OP:

The Non-Aggression Principle is the idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force or fraud, against others. The principle asserts that aggression, defined by proponents as any encroachment on another person's life, liberty, or justly acquired property, or an attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained, is always illegitimate.

What do you think of this Principle? Is it a worthy ideal worth following or is it flawed? Should it apply to property? To government? If not, why not?

A lot to ponder!

[Frelga]

It's the "justly acquired" part that makes it iffy for me, as already discussed above. I'd be less about it if we had no inheritance and everyone started out with the same amount of property. But that's unfeasible, and if it were, I certainly would not be happy about not being able to pass property down to my son.

Besides, how far do you take it? To give a dead horse another kick, is smoking your choice to make, or is it an encroachment on my life? How about that business dumping stuff upriver from me? Or putting nuts that I am allergic to in the food where their presence is not obvious ( gluten free stuff is NOT my friend ) and not labeling it?Or not vaccinating your children and putting other people's infants at risk? In short, without buying my own island, how do I keep other people from affecting my life?

[yovargas]

It's the "justly acquired" part that makes it iffy for me, as already discussed above. I'd be less about it if we had no inheritance and everyone started out with the same amount of property. But that's unfeasible, and if it were, I certainly would not be happy about not being able to pass property down to my son.

Yeah, this bugs me too. Also because of how it circumvents capitalism's big social benefit - that it encourages working hard and working smart cuz that's how you're most likely to earn the biggest rewards. Unless you're one of the Waltons and someone hands you a few billion cuz of your last name. It's something that came to mind while pondering that "flawless history" exercise in that even in that case, time inevitably introduces "flaws". I'm intrigued by the notion as you stated earlier of "supporting tax spending on social programs" being in a way an attempt to fix these inevitable flaws. I think I'd just like a more clear moral guideline on when this kind of "force" is morally acceptable and when it is not. Perhaps if we more clearly limited our tax spending for social programs on things specifically targeting these historical flaws (such as the aforementioned idea of specifically addressing the history of theft and injustice slavery and Jim Crow brought) I would feel more comfortably on moral grounds.

I'll try to respond to the 2nd half of your post laters.

[Primula Baggins]

The problem is that there's now a major disconnect between "working hard and working smart" and earning big rewards. "Fair trade," wage stagnation, and the systematic crushing of unions have made good jobs into lousy ones, and the job market is only now beginning to provide some workers some choice. Where's the social benefit if you work your tail off and get nowhere, and there's no way out? The social benefit in that situation accrues to the owners and bosses only, who collect the benefits not only of their own hard, smart work but that of their desperate employees as well.

Good lord, I'll be singing the Internationale next. But this is what the current situation looks like to me. And to a growing number of others.

[yovargas]

It's kind of a bit tangentially but I'll say this, regardless of the current issues with the system (and many will argue that there is no real capitalist system on the planet anyway), those who "work hard and work smart" will as a general rule be doing better than those who don't and this is good for society as a whole. That's really all I was getting at and why wealth inheritance can seem so lame and unfair.


(eta - even more tangentially but I just wanted to throw out there that I'm a big fan of the concept of unions and it bums me out that they have died out as a major force in the market.)

[Nin]

Another try, in my limited time (and rusty english, not a lot of practice lately).

For me, there are a lot of problems within this principle :
It is too vague and implies many concepts which are already cultural concepts (like property or fraud or consense). Thus formulated, it is so broadly set that it is by far not sufficient to be the defining principle of a society and it does not adress many of the injustices implied in our societies. Moreover, I see that several of the facts that you see as « agression » (like forcing someone to pay taxes), I would never have defined them as such.

I see many choices that I would judge harmful or immoral and that would not hurt that principle. Example : I choose to be a coal miner and work in the mine. The work I (and others) do ends up undermining the ground so deeply that one day a building on top of the mine collapses. 10 people die, 3 are paralyzed, property is damaged. Did or did the minor not hurt your principle? It was a job by free choice, and there was no willing attack on anybody’s life or freedom or property. Yet, you end up with damage – of which some can be for greed of the mine owner (and the fact of owning land is per se critical), who did not take sufficient care to research the solidity of the ground. But it can also be just for lack of knowledge or lack of luck.

In how far is living on wealth which could be used to guarantee better living conditions for more people than only yourself not a form of aggression. If you deny help to someone in need, it can be considered as a criminal offense. If you have more than you need – and you do not give to those who lack basic needs in life – does it not mean the same?
If you start taking drugs, you are not impacting on anybody else’s life, so you do not hurt the principle as I understand it. But on the other hand, especially in the long run, you might need the property justly acquired by someone else in order to be cured – or sometimes just to survive…

So, for me the NAP does most of all not seem a principle which can serve as a basis for a human society because it does not address its primary problems and needs. And as a philosophical principle it may be interesting, but it can only remain that and not be applied because it is too flawed from that.

But this does not really answer your question, I fear.

Maybe during the week-end I can find the time to explain how Kant, Marx, Ahrendt and the moral imperative shaped my view of the world. I'm not sure it's very interesting, though.

[yovargas]

But this does not really answer your question, I fear.

Quite the opposite, it's the most thorough answer yet!

A lot to address. Hopefully soon......

(And I would be super interested to hear what "shaped my view of the world"!)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Indeed, I would agree that was a very thorough answer.

[Túrin Turambar]

Yov, are you familiar with the political philosopher John Rawls by any chance? He made the argument that, if you placed people behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ such that they didn’t know anything about the circumstances of their birth – rich or poor, ethnic majority or minority, man or woman, able or disabled, etc – and asked them what sort of a society they would agree to be born into, that would be a just society.

I think he’s right, although obviously ten people can put themselves through this thought experiment and come up with ten different answers.

[Faramond]

The Non-Aggression Principle is the idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force or fraud, against others. The principle asserts that aggression, defined by proponents as any encroachment on another person's life, liberty, or justly acquired property, or an attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained, is always illegitimate.

If the application of the principle prevents the enforcement of this principle, then it's not of much use to anyone except philosophers, is it?

I mean, if by following this you aren't allowed to collect taxes and pay for a police force, then all you have is an idealistic wish that you can't even approach.

You can't have just one principle. There needs to be more. You can start with one but you can't end with one.

[yovargas]

(Glad to see you comment in here. )

I think where most true libertarians go with this (and I really should read more serious libertarians philosophy so I can more intelligently comment) is some form or another of voluntary taxation. And there's that idealistic side of me that thinks, man, maybe, just maybe that really could work! I mean, there do exist some large, effective, and long-term institutions out there that rely entirely on totally voluntary donations. Somehow they make it work, why couldn't a government? And then the more realistic side of me realizes that that probably wouldn't work for lots and lots of reasons. Buy maaaybe.....

[Primula Baggins]

Having been on the council of a church that is supported entirely by voluntary donations, let me just say that truly committed donors with the highest intentions and the deepest personal loyalty to the church still often do not come through, because it is voluntary and Stuff Happens—the baby gets sick, the car breaks down, the roof leaks. . . .

I think voluntary support works for organizations who are, say, fundraising for a good cause, where every little bit helps and the total doesn't have to be a reliable income for an organization or meet a budget.

It does not work to pay for things that must be available to protect lives and property—recurring expenses like road maintenance, schools, emergency services in cities, and police. They need predictable and budgetable funding. It also doesn't work to pay for things that lots of people like but not everyone thinks they should have to pay for, such as parks and libraries.

And there is the fact that a lot of people have more to pay for than they can (or want to) afford, and if supporting government functions became optional, they would instantly opt out. Some because it really is a burden they can't handle; some because they'd rather buy a new ATV.

[yovargas]

It also doesn't work to pay for things that lots of people like but not everyone thinks they should have to pay for, such as parks and libraries.

And there is the fact that a lot of people have more to pay for than they can (or want to) afford, and if supporting government functions became optional, they would instantly opt out. Some because it really is a burden they can't handle; some because they'd rather buy a new ATV.

Which is, in part, kinda the point.

[Frelga]

Before I try to respond, could you spell out what that point is, so I address it and not the point I think you are making?

[yovargas]

Well...

the idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force or fraud, against others.

...and that...

aggression...is always illegitimate.

Put another way, if we have force people to work towards building something because they won't work voluntarily, perhaps we should question what we're building?