Kevin Vallier Gets It Right

By -
Libertarianism is not a uniquely "non-coercive" political philosophy:

"So let me pose a question to traditional libertarians... you want to set up a libertarian society because you think it is required by justice and to serve the common good. But your free and equal fellows reasonably reject your conception of property rights. As a result, the coercion you are prepared to use to defend your property against their encroachments will be coercion that they have strong reason to reject."

Comments

  1. rob10:14 PM

    This is a very good point.

    Much of anarcho-capitalist ethics is based on acceptance of Lockean first-occupancy theory as a foundation for property rights.

    Most anarcho-capitalists would defend the right to use force to protect these (thus defined) property rights against other who might seek to violate them (whether from criminal or political motives).

    It is very unlikely that existing property-ownership can be derived from first-occupancy principals, but even if it could be so derived it would not necessary make it ethical. Does the mere act of first occupancy give one the right to claim for oneself and ones descendants the benefits of that land for ever? Others who were deprived of access to land by "first occupiers" may well disagree.

    Much of the appeal of anarcho-capitalist theory derives from the fact that the economic benefits of private ownership spread beyond those who do the owning.

    But nevertheless less I think this is a weak area of their theory that is rarely discussed.

    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