Standing naked on my property

[Wolf DeVoon]

Swell guy, Spencer.

Ideas do not govern and overthrow the world: the world is governed or overthrown by feelings, to which ideas serve only as guides. The social mechanism does not rest finally upon opinions, but almost wholly upon character. Not intellectual anarchy, but moral antagonism, is the cause of political crises. All social phenomena are produced by the totality of human emotions and beliefs of which the emotions are mainly pre-determined, while the beliefs are mainly post-determined. Men's desires are chiefly inherited but their beliefs are chiefly acquired, and depend on surrounding conditions; and the most important surrounding conditions depend on the social state which the prevalent desires have produced. The social state at any time existing, is the resultant of all the ambitions, self-interests, fears, reverences, indignations, sympathies, etc., of ancestral citizens and existing citizens. The ideas current in this social state, must, on the average, be congruous with the feelings of citizens; and therefore, on the average, with the social state these feelings have produced. Ideas wholly foreign to this social state cannot be evolved, and if introduced from without, cannot get accepted - or, if accepted, die out when the temporary phase of feeling which caused their acceptance, ends. Hence, though advanced ideas when once established, act upon society and aid its further advance; yet the establishment of such ideas depends on the fitness of the society for receiving them. Practically, the popular character and the social state, determine what ideas shall be current, instead of the current ideas determining the social state and the character. The modification of men's moral natures, caused by the continuous discipline of social life, which adapts them more and more to social relations, is therefore the chief proximate cause of social progress. (Social Statics, Chapter xxx.)

[Samson Corwell]

As Locke stated in your quote above:

"Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property."

Locke's dictum allows any peasant to dig a hole in my garden and claim it as his property. It justifies war, conquest, capturing a slave, property in children, the formation of a sovereign government and taxation (by "labour" of warfare or persuasive negotiations).

see Labor Theory of Value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Just when I think that you cannot write anything more ignorant than what you have written in your previous posts, you manage to surpass my expectations. Congratulations.

Btw, the Wiki link you posted discusses the labor theory of value. That's not what Locke was discussing. He was defending a labor theory of original acquisition of property titles, which is a completely different thing.

Ghs

Meh. Both labor theories strike me as rather arcane little ideas. Property, as far as I can tell, "is the gift of social law" and does not exist outside of society. It may be perfectly fine for me to build a building on some pristine land or it might not.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just when I think that you cannot write anything more ignorant than what you have written in your previous posts, you manage to surpass my expectations.

Yeah, I'm such a dope. Nobody thinks Locke was an egalitarian.

Previous accounts had focused on the claim that since persons own their own labor, when they mix their labor with that which is unowned it becomes their property. Robert Nozick criticized this argument with his famous example of mixing tomato juice one rightfully owns with the sea. When we mix what we own with what we do not, why should we think we gain property instead of losing it?... Since Locke begins with the assumption that the world is owned by all, individual property is only justified if it can be shown that no one is made worse off by the appropriation... Sreenivasan thinks that Locke's theory is thus unable to solve the problem of how individuals can obtain individual property rights in what is initially owned by all people without consent. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Pro

In a handwritten note circa 1693 [bodleian MS Locke c. 28, fo. 141], Locke contemplates the consequences for mankind if there were no God and no divine law. The result would be moral anarchy. Every individual “could have no law but his own will, no end but himself. He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions” ...one cannot doubt that Locke took human equality very seriously and that it pervades the whole of his political thought. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23410-god-locke-and-equality-christian-foundations-of-locke-s-political-thought/

Locke is discussing private property in an age when the idea of widespread property ownership does not yet exist... He said that as “much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property” (Locke Sec. 32) ...which Locke thought would be of only “a very moderate proportion” [and] “no man’s labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part” (Locke Sec. 36). http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2012/02/locke-on-property-a-critique/

If all that is required is an individual's labour to claim ownership of something, then how can a factory boss claim ownership of the product when it consists of the labour of others? Locke argues that through money someone can buy another individual's labour and use it to bring greater reward to themselves... endorsement of a class system by Locke and [his claim] that political power within society should only lie with the property owning classes leads to an obvious Marxist critique. http://imhowarth.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/john-locke-and-the-justification-of-property/

[Samson Corwell]

If you do not believe that rights existed in the ancient world, then it should be a simple matter for you to prove that libraries full of books on Roman law are in error. Start with these two:

Justinian: The Digest of Roman Law, translated by C.F. Kilbert, Penquin Classics, 1979.

Life and Law of Rome, A.J. Crook, Cornell University Press 1967.

Alright, I'll concede that they had something that was similar to rights, but it was in no way like modern rights. See the quote about alternative institutions again.

When I seek an authoritative source on the nature of rights in our current legal system or in the philosophy, I don't go hunting about for an "average person." I tried that once and couldn't get anyone to admit he was average.

Heh. Funny.

You can tell your conservative friend or "average person" that World War I had nothing to do with the expansion of individual rights. The progressive Woodrow Wilson, who was largely responsible for the outcome of World War I and the disasters that ensued in the decades afterwards, did more to destroy American property rights than any previous U.S. president.

By the time of the armistice, the government had taken over the ocean-shipping, railroad, telephone, and telegraph industries; commandeered hundreds of manufacturing plants; entered into massive enterprises on its own account in such varied departments as shipbuilding, wheat trading, and building construction; undertaken to lend huge sums to business directly or indirectly and to regulate the private issuance of securities; established official priorities for the use of transportation facilities, food, fuel, and many raw materials; fixed the prices of dozens of important commodities; intervened in hundreds of labor disputes; and conscripted millions of men for service in the armed forces." --Riggenbach, Jeff, Why American History Is Not What They Say

You simply misunderstand. The meme of rights, in the opinion of that conservative I mentioned, led to what he considers lawlessness. I have some sympathy for his position, but only in a different way; I think this Chesterton quote expresses my feelings on the matter: "The modern man says, 'Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty unadulterated liberty.' This is, logically rendered, 'Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide.'"

Regarding the Magna Carta, you are simply misinformed. To take only one example of many rights secured by that document:

No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.

How is that a refutation of my position? I said that they served as a foundation, a sort of prototype for rights. Rights evolved out of them. The Magna Carta even affirms what the anarchist said.

Regarding voting and trial by jury, ultimately those rest on property rights. Voting rights give the citizen a stake, a share in his government. What is at risk in a criminal trial if not the loss of the freedom to move one's body from place to place or right to retain all of the property one currently owns?

Word play. This is simply nonsense and strongly reeks of desperation. I could take the same tact with these things to conclude that they're something entirely different. "Oh, your right to do X with Y is not a property right. No, it's an action right because it allows you to act in a certain way."

As for the example of fumes moving from one's house to a neighbor's house, what is controversial about treating it as an invasion of one's property? If one cannot demonstrate harm, there is no liability. If one can demonstrate harm, it is no different than pursuing a claim for a bent fender in traffic court.

Now you're shifting to Mill's harm principle. Of course, the disagreement is over what constitutes harm. Some teenager cutting across the corner of your lawn on the way home from school? Nothing to get upset over. Flashing your wang at someone and potentially traumatizing them? Harmful. Taxation? Not aggressive in the least.

[George H. Smith]

Swell guy, Spencer.

Ideas do not govern and overthrow the world: the world is governed or overthrown by feelings, to which ideas serve only as guides. The social mechanism does not rest finally upon opinions, but almost wholly upon character. Not intellectual anarchy, but moral antagonism, is the cause of political crises. All social phenomena are produced by the totality of human emotions and beliefs of which the emotions are mainly pre-determined, while the beliefs are mainly post-determined. Men's desires are chiefly inherited but their beliefs are chiefly acquired, and depend on surrounding conditions; and the most important surrounding conditions depend on the social state which the prevalent desires have produced. The social state at any time existing, is the resultant of all the ambitions, self-interests, fears, reverences, indignations, sympathies, etc., of ancestral citizens and existing citizens. The ideas current in this social state, must, on the average, be congruous with the feelings of citizens; and therefore, on the average, with the social state these feelings have produced. Ideas wholly foreign to this social state cannot be evolved, and if introduced from without, cannot get accepted - or, if accepted, die out when the temporary phase of feeling which caused their acceptance, ends. Hence, though advanced ideas when once established, act upon society and aid its further advance; yet the establishment of such ideas depends on the fitness of the society for receiving them. Practically, the popular character and the social state, determine what ideas shall be current, instead of the current ideas determining the social state and the character. The modification of men's moral natures, caused by the continuous discipline of social life, which adapts them more and more to social relations, is therefore the chief proximate cause of social progress. (Social Statics, Chapter xxx.)

Do you have a point -- other, that is, than the one on your head?

Btw, I discuss the role that Spencer attributed to ideas in this Cato Essay: http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/optimism-pessimism-case-herbert-spencer-part-5

Similar issues are touched upon in other parts of the same series.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Just when I think that you cannot write anything more ignorant than what you have written in your previous posts, you manage to surpass my expectations.

Yeah, I'm such a dope. Nobody thinks Locke was an egalitarian.

Previous accounts had focused on the claim that since persons own their own labor, when they mix their labor with that which is unowned it becomes their property. Robert Nozick criticized this argument with his famous example of mixing tomato juice one rightfully owns with the sea. When we mix what we own with what we do not, why should we think we gain property instead of losing it?... Since Locke begins with the assumption that the world is owned by all, individual property is only justified if it can be shown that no one is made worse off by the appropriation... Sreenivasan thinks that Locke's theory is thus unable to solve the problem of how individuals can obtain individual property rights in what is initially owned by all people without consent. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Pro

In a handwritten note circa 1693 [bodleian MS Locke c. 28, fo. 141], Locke contemplates the consequences for mankind if there were no God and no divine law. The result would be moral anarchy. Every individual “could have no law but his own will, no end but himself. He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions” ...one cannot doubt that Locke took human equality very seriously and that it pervades the whole of his political thought. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23410-god-locke-and-equality-christian-foundations-of-locke-s-political-thought/

Locke is discussing private property in an age when the idea of widespread property ownership does not yet exist... He said that as “much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property” (Locke Sec. 32) ...which Locke thought would be of only “a very moderate proportion” [and] “no man’s labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part” (Locke Sec. 36). http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2012/02/locke-on-property-a-critique/

If all that is required is an individual's labour to claim ownership of something, then how can a factory boss claim ownership of the product when it consists of the labour of others? Locke argues that through money someone can buy another individual's labour and use it to bring greater reward to themselves... endorsement of a class system by Locke and [his claim] that political power within society should only lie with the property owning classes leads to an obvious Marxist critique. http://imhowarth.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/john-locke-and-the-justification-of-property/

I have no problem with criticisms of Locke's theory of property or other aspects of his thinking, though I don't think Nozick did a very good job. But your original comments were just plain nuts. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that "Locke is discussing private property in an age when the idea of widespread property ownership does not yet exist..." Vast tracts of land were owned, legally if not justly, by aristocrats (and king) in his day.

It's pretty clear that you have been surfing the Net to find some criticisms of Locke, probably in the hope it will look like you actually know something about this subject. That is a boneheaded method that any child can do. You can find almost any opinion you want online. I suggest that you read Locke for yourself instead.

As for Locke being an "egalitarian," he believed that people are born with equal rights and that individual consent is required for anyone else to claim political dominion over them. Was he consistent in this regard? No, not in my opinion, but the foundation he laid proved very important to the future of libertarian thought. Locke was not an "egalitarian" in any other sense, and certainly not in the modern sense.

Ghs

[Francisco Ferrer]

Alright, I'll concede that they had something that was similar to rights, but it was in no way like modern rights. See the quote about alternative institutions again.

Heh. Funny.

You simply misunderstand. The meme of rights, in the opinion of that conservative I mentioned, led to what he considers lawlessness. I have some sympathy for his position, but only in a different way; I think this Chesterton quote expresses my feelings on the matter: "The modern man says, 'Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty unadulterated liberty.' This is, logically rendered, 'Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide.'"

How is that a refutation of my position? I said that they served as a foundation, a sort of prototype for rights. Rights evolved out of them. The Magna Carta even affirms what the anarchist said.

Word play. This is simply nonsense and strongly reeks of desperation. I could take the same tact with these things to conclude that they're something entirely different. "Oh, your right to do X with Y is not a property right. No, it's an action right because it allows you to act in a certain way."

Now you're shifting to Mill's harm principle. Of course, the disagreement is over what constitutes harm. Some teenager cutting across the corner of your lawn on the way home from school? Nothing to get upset over. Flashing your wang at someone and potentially traumatizing them? Harmful. Taxation? Not aggressive in the least.

I agree with your conservative friend that the horrors of the 20th century were due to lawlessness. But it was the lawlessness of government, the lawlessness of absolute rulers who refused to be bound by any code which applied to ordinary men. Similarly, the decline of freedom in America can be traced in large part to the refusal of the government to abide by what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

The Magna Carta was not a prototype of rights, it was the codification of rights, no different in nature or effect than the U.S. Constitution. Its influence on the generation that produced America's founding documents was profound. Consider Aritcle 39 of the Magna Carta: "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Now compare that with Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights: "No man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land."

If freedoms promised by the Magna Carta were eroded or repealed over time, that is no less true of America's Bill of Rights.

"Word play," "nonsense," and "desperation" are outbursts of your feelings but do not constitute an argument.

As for liability, it is a well-established principle of civil law that needs no defense on this forum. If a child trespasses on a yard, the owner is entitled to demand that he cease and desist. If the child has damaged the lawn, the owner is entitled to seek compensation. I have already responded to the issue of flashing; it lacks the essential element of physical force.

If taxation is morally legitimate, then so is any other form of theft including armed robbery. Collecting a federal paycheck does not exempt one from moral law.

[Wolf DeVoon]

... the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution

... a federal paycheck does not exempt one from moral law

Uh, the supreme law of the land is a federal paycheck, has been since 1790. Moral law had nothing to do with it.

In fact, moral law was notably absent in America.

Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England... The first certain reference to African slavery is in connection with the bloody Pequot War in 1637. The Pequot Indians of central Connecticut, pressed hard by encroaching European settlements, struck back and attacked the town of Wetherfield. A few months later, Massachusetts and Connecticut militias joined forces and raided the Pequot village near Mystic, Connecticut. Of the few Indians who escaped slaughter, the women and children were enslaved in New England, and Roger Williams of Rhode Island wrote to Winthrop congratulating him on God's having placed in his hands "another drove of Adam's degenerate seed." But most of the men and boys, deemed too dangerous to keep in the colony, were transported to the West Indies aboard the ship Desire, to be exchanged for African slaves. The Desire arrived back in Massachusetts in 1638, after exchanging its cargo, according to Winthrop, loaded with "Salt, cotton, tobacco and Negroes." In 1646, this became the official policy of the New England Confederation. As elsewhere in the New World, the shortage and expense of free, white labor motivated the quest for slaves. In 1645, Emanuel Downing, brother-in-law of John Winthrop, wrote to him longing for a "juste warre" with the Pequots, so the colonists might capture enough Indian men, women, and children to exchange in Barbados for black slaves, because the colony would never thrive "untill we gett ... a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our business." http://slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm

Despite the remarkable clarity of Penn's vision for liberty, he had a curious blind spot about slavery. He owned some slaves in America, as did many other Quakers. Antislavery didn't become a widely shared Quaker position until 1758, 40 years after Penn's death. http://www.quaker.org/wmpenn.html

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition [of slavery] was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme... Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential consequence of emancipation. Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

There is no doubt that Benjamin Franklin owned slaves; his newspaper in the 1730s often featured slaves for sale. Most black servants were slaves, fully owned property of the master, while many white servants were indentured, probably ex-convicts serving out their sentences. One typical advertisement read: ‘A servant man’s time for nearly three years to be disposed of. He is a joiner by trade and a very good worker.’ We know that Franklin owned Peter and his wife Jemima, and a young boy named Othello, who may have been their son, bought in June 1757 for £41 and 10 shillings. Other slaves in the Franklin household were George and John. http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/about_franklin/Issue%205%20Spring-Summer%20200%20Benjamin%20Franklin%20and%20Slavery.pdf

Debates in the Federal Convention, 1787: Slavery is "inconsistent with the principles of the revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution." (Luther Martin) "The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the states themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole." (Oliver Ellsworth) "This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants ... The western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a county. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." (George Mason) "If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world." (Charles Pinckney) "The true question was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation, and this question ought to be left to the national government, not to the states particularly interested. (John Dickinson) "Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the clause be rejected; and that it was wrong to force anything down not absolutely necessary and which any state must disagree to." (H. Williamson) "The subject should be considered in a political light only." (Rufus King) "If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those states will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest." (John Rutledge) "These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern States." (Gouverneur Morris) "By agreeing to the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodist, and many others in the states having no slaves. On the other hand, two states might be lost to the Union." (Edmund Randolph) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_822.asp

Slavery was the source of Andrew Jackson’s wealth. Without the forced labor of men, women, and children, The Hermitage would not have been economically viable... At the time of his death in 1845, Jackson owned approximately 150 human beings who lived and worked on this property. http://www.thehermitage.com/mansion-grounds/farm/slavery

§10, Fugitive Slave Act, 1850: When any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney may apply to any court of record therein... [and obtain a certificate that] shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory from which he escaped. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fugitive.asp

"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? ... In the opinion of the Court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857]

[Wolf DeVoon]

You can find almost any opinion you want online.

...including yours. How stupid of me to quote Stanford, Notre Dame, and Locke himself.

The Lord the Judge (says Jephtha) be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such controversies, where the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. (Second Treatise)

[Samson Corwell]

The Magna Carta was not a prototype of rights, it was the codification of rights, no different in nature or effect than the U.S. Constitution. Its influence on the generation that produced America's founding documents was profound. Consider Aritcle 39 of the Magna Carta: "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Now compare that with Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights: "No man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land."

I don't see the word "right" in either of those passages. In fact, the word that comes closest to it is "privileges", something which is not at all like the concept of rights.

"Word play," "nonsense," and "desperation" are outbursts of your feelings but do not constitute an argument.

No, they're quite accurate descriptions of what you're doing.

As for liability, it is a well-established principle of civil law that needs no defense on this forum. If a child trespasses on a yard, the owner is entitled to demand that he cease and desist. If the child has damaged the lawn, the owner is entitled to seek compensation.

ROFL. Where in the world is it a "well-established principle" that a child can be held liable for much of anything? In most Western jurisdictions they're not even capable of being tried for crimes. Go to court asking that the judge order a child to compensation for damage they've done to your garden and you'll be laughed out of the room.

I have already responded to the issue of flashing; it lacks the essential element of physical force.

So does my laser example. Even if force was the sole standard by which to judge laws, half the time you're not even using that word correctly, which only serves to reinforce my point that law is not reducible to sloganeering.

If taxation is morally legitimate, then so is any other form of theft including armed robbery. Collecting a federal paycheck does not exempt one from moral law.

Hah! And that's where you're wrong. Most people don't believe taxation is theft, so what this amounts to is: "If doing something that's just is morally legitimate, then so is any other thing that's unjust.".

[Brant Gaede]

There tends to be some moral legitimacy in taxation as opposed to armed robbery because of general implicit consent to the first and none to the second. It's not just in kind or in principle but in amount. Yes, taxation is theft but it's not theft under the law. A not so good parallel example, but good enough for our purposes, was the interment of Japanese Americans in WWII in what were in principle concentration camps. The problem is Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have thought they had died and gone to heaven if they had suddenly found themselves in Manzanar. Or, as the SOB Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

There tends to be some moral legitimacy in taxation as opposed to armed robbery because of general implicit consent to the first and none to the second. It's not just in kind or in principle but in amount. Yes, taxation is theft but it's not theft under the law. A not so good parallel example, but good enough for our purposes, was the interment of Japanese Americans in WWII in what were in principle concentration camps. The problem is Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have thought they had died and gone to heaven if they had suddenly found themselves in Manzanar. Or, as the SOB Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

--Brant

Brant, I'm not sure why lack of consent makes something theft. Is compelling a person pay damages "theft" if they don't want to comply? This is entirely separate from whether or not taxation is theft, of course. I also think most people, even "statists", understand the tale about times when you shouldn't follow the law.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, I'm such a dope.

You are kind of a dope, despite your intelligence.

It's hard as an observer -- but nevertheless intriguing -- trying to figure out why you come to your loopy conclusions and seem to be so thin-skinned and unable to answer criticism. It's like watching a skilled carpenter construct a house at the totally wrong scale and cant, and trying to figure out how he has so horribly mismeasured. Which of his tools might be defective, or why and how might he be misreading the blueprints?

It's fascinating to watch how angry you get in the face of criticism, and how you try to support your mismeasurements with evidence that doesn't actually support them.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

mismeasurements with evidence that doesn't actually support them.

All very fine prose, but you forgot to address any topic, any specific point. I doubt you've ever seen me discomfited by criticism.

I don't trade in epithets or ad hominem. George does. You do. It's the rhetoric of bad actors; an argument from intimidation.

[Mikee]

Yeah, I'm such a dope.

You are kind of a dope, despite your intelligence.

It's hard as an observer -- but nevertheless intriguing -- trying to figure out why you come to your loopy conclusions and seem to be so thin-skinned and unable to answer criticism. It's like watching a skilled carpenter construct a house at the totally wrong scale and cant, and trying to figure out how he has so horribly mismeasured. Which of his tools might be defective, or why and how might he be misreading the blueprints?

It's fascinating to watch how angry you get in the face of criticism, and how you try to support your mismeasurements with evidence that doesn't actually support them.

J

Great, a zero information content smear. Try addressing a single premise [hint: Ayn Rand "Check your premises"]

[Brant Gaede]

There tends to be some moral legitimacy in taxation as opposed to armed robbery because of general implicit consent to the first and none to the second. It's not just in kind or in principle but in amount. Yes, taxation is theft but it's not theft under the law. A not so good parallel example, but good enough for our purposes, was the interment of Japanese Americans in WWII in what were in principle concentration camps. The problem is Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have thought they had died and gone to heaven if they had suddenly found themselves in Manzanar. Or, as the SOB Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

--Brant

Brant, I'm not sure why lack of consent makes something theft. Is compelling a person pay damages "theft" if they don't want to comply? This is entirely separate from whether or not taxation is theft, of course. I also think most people, even "statists", understand the tale about times when you shouldn't follow the law.

Theft is theft and we can call taxation theft for it is. What goes on in the mind of any citizen--or doesn't go on--has to do with theft sanction or not and generally the theft of taxation is sanctioned so it's tolerated while outright strong-armed robbery sends the perpetrator to jail if caught, tried and convicted. The "consent" has nothing to do with whether taxation is theft, only whether the government thieves are allowed to get away with it de jure. The worst tax of all, of course, was national service or the military draft. Same principle. If I go grab and enslave someone that's kidnapping and worse. The government has done it millions and millions of tolerated times resulting in much death and maining and destruction.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

I've wasted a few minutes reviewing the standard sources again, a shitty task. The situation is as follows. There have been two meritorious contributions to the philosophy of law, neither of which is widely discussed. The first was Hugo Grotius who was working in the subject matter of international law and propounded the idea of individual rights. The second was Roscoe Pound, a scholar who saw that the Grotian idea of individual rights inspired Locke and the so-called "natural law" tradition, which everyone here wrongly assumes is a full solution (doesn't matter whether you assert right to life, or property in self). Pound saw it for exactly what it is:

[Natural law] theory put rights above the state and justice above the state as permanent, absolute realities which the state was organized to protect. There was a state because there were rights and justice to protect and secure... (1) There are natural rights demonstrable by reason. These rights are eternal and absolute. They are valid for all men in all times and in all places. (2) Natural law is a body or rules, ascertainable by reason, which perfectly secures all of these natural rights. (3) The state exists only to secure men in these natural rights. (4) Positive law is the means by which the state performs this function, and it is obligatory only so far as it conforms to natural law. The appeal is to individual reason. Hence every individual is the judge of this conformity... Pushed to its limits, this leads straight to anarchy. [Pound, 27 Harv. L. Rev., 616]

What's wrong with "natural law" is its utter obliviousness to the rule of law, specifically adversarial due process: prohibition of secret evidence, right to cross examine witnesses, presumption of innocence, competent counsel, an impartial lay jury, and two thousand other detailed provisions of fair trial. I can't emphasize it strongly enough. At common law the state is just another litigant.

I've taken it farther than others. But fuck's sake, the rule of law has nothing to do with "natural rights."

Whatever method is chosen for the selection of law judges, and however their jurisdictions and appellate hierarchy may be organized, it is a first principle of justice that no man should judge his own cause. If the judge has any personal interest in a case, or a personal relationship with any of the parties, it is plain error if he fails to recuse himself. [Laissez Faire Law, p.69]

rights provide the extension from personal morality to life in society

“L’etat, c’est moi!” (Louis XIV)

First off, I apologize for being behind in this discussion so I might retread some ground.

I had to reread your posts a couple of times in order to understand what your objection is. Roscoe Pound seems to have perfectly captured the idea of individual rights, but then appears to jump to a completely unjustified conclusion.

The appeal to reason is not an appeal to "individual reason." The appeal is to objective reason or objective logic. It is the same as the scientific appeal to objectivity. Each scientist must use his own mind and his own experimental procedures in order to attempt to determine the truth or falsehood of some statement of fact about the world, but his conclusions are subject to review by the rest of the scientific community. The same is true if one takes a scientific view of morality and the construction of a just society.

From his subjective attack on "individual reason", Pound jumps to the conclusion that "every individual is the judge" of how well legal procedures operate in producing results that conform to natural law. But, that is clearly not what supporters of natural law are promoting. They are certainly not promoting a system in which each person is allowed to judge his own case before the court and it is hard to see how each person having an opinion about the proper operation of the government leads to anarchy.

You seem to agree with Pound's preposterous conclusions. Your quote of Louis XIV conveys exactly that impression. Other than actual anarchists, no promoter of natural rights believes that "I am the state." Ayn Rand certainly did not and that is not an idea promoted by Objectivism. Objectivism views people as independent until and unless they violate the rights of others.

I don't think anyone here believes that natural rights are a full solution. I certainly don't. Natural rights provide a goal that the legislative branch should attempt to reach in its formulation of laws. It doesn't say anything about rule of law or judicial procedures or even concepts such as the separation of powers or the notion of checks and balances. But, all of that is somewhat arbitrary. It's like comparing the design of a car with the laws of physics. The theory of natural rights is like the laws of physics. The structure of government and the legal procedures by which the judiciary operates are like the design of a car. The design is important: Four wheels tend to work better than three. Rubber tires are better than metal ones. Internal combustion engines are currently the best, compact source of power. The existence and placement of the steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal are all important. But, things could be arranged differently and work similarly, perhaps better.

The theory of rights manifests itself in the laws of economics. The laws of economics can no more be violated than the laws of physics. No matter how much the politicians wish it weren't true, raising taxes above a certain point doesn't raise revenue and all taxes hurt productivity over the long run to the extent that they reduce the rate of economic growth. That's because the right way for man to live is as a free, independent, rational being living in peace and harmony --- a system of mutual and reciprocal respect for the lives, liberty and property --- with other men. That fact cannot be modified or violated by any law or legal procedure. One can only judge the conformance of laws and legal procedures to the nature of man.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

Yeah, I'm such a dope.

You are kind of a dope, despite your intelligence.

It's hard as an observer -- but nevertheless intriguing -- trying to figure out why you come to your loopy conclusions and seem to be so thin-skinned and unable to answer criticism. It's like watching a skilled carpenter construct a house at the totally wrong scale and cant, and trying to figure out how he has so horribly mismeasured. Which of his tools might be defective, or why and how might he be misreading the blueprints?

It's fascinating to watch how angry you get in the face of criticism, and how you try to support your mismeasurements with evidence that doesn't actually support them.

J

It may seem a bit over the place, but I think he's got some good points.

[Wolf DeVoon]

natural law...

...the right way for man to live is as a free, independent, rational being living in peace and harmony --- a system of mutual and reciprocal respect for the lives, liberty and property --- with other men.

1. An assertion is not an argument.

2. Locke asserts that the world was given by God to all of us equally.

3. Rand has a logical argument, that man's nature determines his needs, the imperative of reason, and liberty to act on it.

4. Locke asserts an equal right to land and assumes that there is plenty of good land for all, which is untrue.

5. Rand is sympathetic to "reciprocal respect" but her body of work addresses evil, mob rule, tragedy, and individuated liberation.

6. It is a mistake to attribute to John Locke modern sensibilities he did not possess.

Throughout Locke’s writings those who would threaten or undermine government...are to be outlawed according to his schemes: intolerances or prudential considerations linger within his general libertarian framework. Indeed, writing in 1669 Locke accepts the institution of slavery, and as late as 1697 (a good decade and a half after writing the Two Treatises), he advises press-ganging beggars into military service and that begging minors should be “soundly whipped.” http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/

The most we can reasonably say about Lockean "natural law" is that it bore bitter fruit in America. In post #333 above, I documented the history of slavery in America and our forefathers' denial of equal natural rights for all. If you argue that we are a better society today, it is my unpleasant duty to gape in disbelief.

Evidence abounds that we continue to view certain religious creeds, ethnic groups, and foreign lands as fit objects of war because (in Locke's words) “faith may be broken with heretics.” Domestically, the United States is only vaguely governed by an imbecilic electorate of takers, for whom the whole meaning of natural law is an unearned entitlement or porkbarrel earmark, both funded by more public debt.

[Darrell Hougen]

Meh. Both labor theories strike me as rather arcane little ideas. Property, as far as I can tell, "is the gift of social law" and does not exist outside of society. It may be perfectly fine for me to build a building on some pristine land or it might not.

It is true that at least two people are required to make the idea of property relevant, but beyond that it is part and parcel of being human.

Consider two children playing with blocks. The first builds a tower and the second knocks it down. The first is upset for understandable reasons. When the second knocks down the tower built by the first, all of the creative effort of the first child in building something to his liking and for his own enjoyment is wasted. The notion of property protects a person in his expenditure of effort for his own ends. Even the child knows that the blocks, once arranged by his effort are his tower and he incensed when the other child knocks it down. Even at an early age he senses that some injustice has been done. That is how deeply ingrained the notion of property rights is.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

Meh. Both labor theories strike me as rather arcane little ideas. Property, as far as I can tell, "is the gift of social law" and does not exist outside of society. It may be perfectly fine for me to build a building on some pristine land or it might not.

It is true that at least two people are required to make the idea of property relevant, but beyond that it is part and parcel of being human.

Consider two children playing with blocks. The first builds a tower and the second knocks it down. The first is upset for understandable reasons. When the second knocks down the tower built by the first, all of the creative effort of the first child in building something to his liking and for his own enjoyment is wasted. The notion of property protects a person in his expenditure of effort for his own ends. Even the child knows that the blocks, once arranged by his effort are his tower and he incensed when the other child knocks it down. Even at an early age he senses that some injustice has been done. That is how deeply ingrained the notion of property rights is.

Darrell

Yeah, I'm not so sure about your link between property and protecting effort. I'd venture to say making such a connection isn't necessary and there are cases where I'd say "X should belong to Y even though <insert something about effort>"; I'm not going to try to find a back reason for justifying an evolved social institution that has no major flaws in it. And even though your example about blocks may be extrapolated to some other situations, there are others where it won't work and other stuff needs to the heavy lifting. For example, it's hard to see how you could extrapolate it to roads, rivers, and the oceans. That aside, I do think your point about enjoyment does hold some water.

[Wolf DeVoon]

A inherits $5 billion in property, B is born a pauper. (Samson is on the right track with roads, rivers, and oceans.)

We distinguish human rights as a set of natural liberties belonging in justice to mankind, and only to mankind, because the human understanding is a function of individual effort and a long series of self-determined choices in the conduct of one's life. These rights belong in strictly equal measure to every man, woman and child (in proportion to maturity) because the capacity and responsiblity of free choice exists equally for the intelligent and the stupid, rich and poor, native-born and alien immigrant. An intelligent man faces more complex questions, perhaps, than a slower sibling, but with no more or less responsibility to exercise his powers or let them fall into disuse and sloth.

A rich man has more responsibilities, if he is to retain and cultivate his wealth, and a poor man has fewer choices to pursue, if he is to make the most of his situation -- but neither is more or less equipped to adopt an honorable moral standard and live according to its mandate. A native son may love his country or spit on its cherished ideals. A newcomer must choose his destination with care, because no one in this life is guaranteed a pre-ordained satisfaction...

Despite a pretense of normalcy, the U.S. political stove is red hot. It demands our urgent attention as adult citizens. We are undeniably responsible for the safety and welfare of children, who perceive and mimic our emotional expressions, whether we are habitually glum or joyous or some smiling shadow of self. This is the power and deeper meaning of political history, believe it or not. If you feel that America is mostly free, mostly an unimpeded and open society, like a frontier full of adventure, then your kids will grow straight and tall in the conviction that life is an open road. However, this is a profoundly uncommon sense of American history. Most of us believe that liberty exists only in the bedroom, that elections and office holders are necessary, and that the adventure of living consists of pleasing neighbors, teachers, coworkers, customers, and cops, who want nothing fundamentally changed — ever.

...Conservatives, liberals, rednecks and Jews all bow their heads at the same national prayer breakfast, petitioning God for more of the same, thank you.

...This arrangement can and will be changed fairly soon. Help wanted.

[Laissez Faire Law, pp.10-11, 107, 110, 117]

[Darrell Hougen]

Natural rights provide a goal that the legislative branch should attempt to reach in its formulation of laws. It doesn't say anything about rule of law or judicial procedures or even concepts such as the separation of powers or the notion of checks and balances. But, all of that is somewhat arbitrary. It's like comparing the design of a car with the laws of physics. The theory of natural rights is like the laws of physics. The structure of government and the legal procedures by which the judiciary operates are like the design of a car. The design is important: Four wheels tend to work better than three. Rubber tires are better than metal ones. Internal combustion engines are currently the best, compact source of power. The existence and placement of the steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal are all important. But, things could be arranged differently and work similarly, perhaps better.

The theory of rights manifests itself in the laws of economics. The laws of economics can no more be violated than the laws of physics. No matter how much the politicians wish it weren't true, raising taxes above a certain point doesn't raise revenue and all taxes hurt productivity over the long run to the extent that they reduce the rate of economic growth. That's because the right way for man to live is as a free, independent, rational being living in peace and harmony --- a system of mutual and reciprocal respect for the lives, liberty and property --- with other men. That fact cannot be modified or violated by any law or legal procedure. One can only judge the conformance of laws and legal procedures to the nature of man.

After I wrote that, I noticed this video with Milton Friedman:

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Here is a gem. It is George H. Smith in 1996 discussing "Revolution". At about 10:19, he discusses the difference between the principle of government and the form of government for a couple of minutes.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Here is a gem.

 

George conflated the claim of rights in the Declaration with the power conveyed in the Constitution. They had nothing in common.

Very sad to hear a "moral" justification again, made far worse by equivocation of painless "prudence." Sounded like a Quaker.

 

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflexion is awful—and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world... Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, THE ACT OF BEARING ARMS, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity—And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

 

[Paine, addressing Quakers, in Common Sense]

 

Face it, folks. Libertarian exposition of moral right achieved nothing—except tenured office and fees pocketed by Libertarians.

 

Listen to Comrade Block laugh about $175K working 150 hours a year