War of the Blogs

By -
PSH responds to my recent posts on Lockean property theory here. (By the way, certain people who occasionally comment here might look to PSH as a role model: although often tragically mistaken, PSH is unfailingly polite in error, and is an honest participant in discussion.)


I feel that PSH is missing the point of my posts, which is that no current property has this pristine Lockean past, and, as he points out, instead it is owned by a pragmatic compromise that decides that social order and prosperity should trump redress for far distant crimes. THEREFORE, the libertarian claims of injustice at the slightest encroachment upon property rights is invalid. ALL of our current property rights are social creations, therefore society may adjust them without any necessary injustice. (That is NOT to say that all possible adjustments are just!)

Property rights and governments arose together out of already existing tribal social arrangements, and not out of Lockean homesteading or Hobbesian bargaining by individuals who appeared on the scene mysteriously, with no social ties or context.

Comments

  1. Anonymous4:47 PM

    You're missing the link to the post by PSH.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah7:39 PM

    Thanks, Jeff.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more