It Weren't Lockean Homesteading!

By -
"there aren't very many examples of modern property rights emerging spontaneously and peacefully out of a bargaining process. The way customary property rights yielded to modern ones was much more violent, and power and deceit played a large role." -- Francis Fukuyama, The Origins of Political Order

Comments

  1. dkuehn2:22 PM

    And we are probably better for that violence and deceit. This need not be an argument against property rights. What it's an argument against is natural rights. Property rights are great! They're just messier and more ad hoc than many would like to admit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nathan4:04 PM

    I'm all for some kinds of organic, ad hoc government, as contrasted with the modern state.

    I dunno if that makes me some sort of anarchist, or just confused.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah7:06 PM

    I quite agree.
    Have you gotten either of my last two emails? I'd ask you by email, but if you're not getting them, that would obviously be pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Watoosh11:32 PM

    Daniel: what you're saying seems just plain wrong, even if you approach from a very utilitarian point of view. First of all, not only did the wrongful acquisition start from misery, it led to a perversely unequal division of wealth - if anything, I'd expect a progressive to be against this! (assuming you self-identify as a progressive or anything like it, that is.) Second, even if Lockean property rules aren't quite as neat in real life as on paper, surely there are ways of dealing with property that are preferable to violence and deceit?

    Also, according to what standard are we better off than in your counterfactual?

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah9:46 PM

    Watoosh, I took him to be saying just, "We're better off having private property than not."

    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