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. Anonymous11:32 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

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more