KInsella and Thin Air

[George H. Smith]

Given the recklessness with which you've interpreted what I've written so far, there's no chance in hell I'm going further down this path.

Fine with me.

Your writing is not nearly as clear as you think it is. We have encountered this problem before.

Ghs

[nskinsella]

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises.

Depends on one's context. For those whom property rights (qua basic type of human right) are both sacred and not arbitrary, he was indeed denigrating it. No amount of "but he was taken out of context" is going to save that quote.

Shayne

Sacred is meaningless. As for arbitrary--he's not saying they are arbitrary. there is nothing wrong w/ Mises's quote.

[George H. Smith]

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises.

Depends on one's context. For those whom property rights (qua basic type of human right) are both sacred and not arbitrary, he was indeed denigrating it. No amount of "but he was taken out of context" is going to save that quote.

Shayne

Mises was a utilitarian who (at times) was very critical of the natural law/natural rights tradition. Even so, I do not see the quoted passage as a denigration of private property, which he regarded as absolutely essential to a good society and economic prosperity.

Rand's approach to property is considerably better.

Ghs

[anthony]

Although von Mises' quote is out of context, and I'm no expert on him, I admit I'm surprised at this. Was he being dismissive of property, or was he only giving the historical precedents?

I'm no expert either, but my understanding is that Mises was a proponent of a subjective theory of value. His was certainly not a moral case for rights.

It's inarguable that Rand had this spot-on : "There can be no individual rights, without property rights."

As with many other issues concerning individual rights, she didn't have it spot-on. The actual truth is that right are indivisible. You can't have one right when another is violated. There is no way to respect property rights without also respecting right to speech, but also there is no way to respect right to speech without also respecting right to property. This is because a rights are rights to action, and any interference with your action is an interference with your person. If you reach out and grab an apple and someone slaps your arm, they've interfered with your action. Any violation of a right is directly comparable to that: someone stopping you from acting.

Shayne

Okay,

But doesn't the right to property presuppose the right to freedom of action? Isn't the second a derivation of the first, iow?

Interference with another's actions to sustain himself, would constitute denial of his rights to property.

Agreed that they are indivisible, but property rights still appear to be primary.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Although von Mises' quote is out of context, and I'm no expert on him, I admit I'm surprised at this. Was he being dismissive of property, or was he only giving the historical precedents?

I'm no expert either, but my understanding is that Mises was a proponent of a subjective theory of value. His was certainly not a moral case for rights.

It's inarguable that Rand had this spot-on : "There can be no individual rights, without property rights."

As with many other issues concerning individual rights, she didn't have it spot-on. The actual truth is that right are indivisible. You can't have one right when another is violated. There is no way to respect property rights without also respecting right to speech, but also there is no way to respect right to speech without also respecting right to property. This is because a rights are rights to action, and any interference with your action is an interference with your person. If you reach out and grab an apple and someone slaps your arm, they've interfered with your action. Any violation of a right is directly comparable to that: someone stopping you from acting.

You have your rights, period. If they are violated you still have them. Not being able to exercise your rights, one or all, is a separate question or problem. This is because government does not grant them--nor does another person; they are tied directly into your nature and social needs as a human being amongst other human beings. If this were not so, the mere act of a rights' violation would make the issue of rights mute. Fighting for your rights would be a contradiction.

--Brant

[sjw]

Given the recklessness with which you've interpreted what I've written so far, there's no chance in hell I'm going further down this path.

Fine with me.

Your writing is not nearly as clear as you think it is. We have encountered this problem before.

Ghs

George, I agree that you're a master at writing and I'm a novice. All I can do is my best. Are you doing your best to give due benefit the doubt when interpreting what others write? Or are you just primed to pounce on anything and everything that doesn't land perfectly into your brain?

You're not totally at fault here, I made a mistake, and you caught it. You'd make a fantastic editor. But I was not unclear enough to warrant the litany of misrepresentations you've engaged in here.

Shayne

[sjw]

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises.

Depends on one's context. For those whom property rights (qua basic type of human right) are both sacred and not arbitrary, he was indeed denigrating it. No amount of "but he was taken out of context" is going to save that quote.

Shayne

Sacred is meaningless.

Spoken like a true ancap. My right to take actions that do not interfere with others is of the highest importance to me. That is what "sacred" means.

As for arbitrary--he's not saying they are arbitrary. there is nothing wrong w/ Mises's quote.

So if not arbitrary, then what? He said they were arbitrary. Why are you arguing with Mises? I thought he was sacred to ancaps ;)

Shayne

[sjw]

Okay,

But doesn't the right to property presuppose the right to freedom of action? Isn't the second a derivation of the first, iow?

The right to property IS the right to an action. So you have it backwards: property rights are derived from the right to action. I believe Rand even recognizes this (her CUI essay on Man's Rights).

Interference with another's actions to sustain himself, would constitute denial of his rights to property.

Agreed that they are indivisible, but property rights still appear to be primary.

Tony

You have to be very clear about what a property right actually is. If you analyze the concept carefully, you will see that a property right is the right to an action: you have the right to use the object in question, and a right to prevent others from using it. Both are actions. Non-interfering action is the substance of rights.

Shayne

[sjw]

You have your rights, period. If they are violated you still have them.

If your right to life is violated and you become dead, do you have them?

I'm not arguing with the objectivity of inalienable individual rights -- yes, certainly, rights are objective. The concept of rights has multiple legitimate senses, in the moral sense, yes, you always have your rights. I believe there are three crucial senses of the concept of rights. In order of importance:

Sense 1: A right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another.

Sense 2: A right is a moral prerogative to take any action but those that interfere with the rights [sense 1] of another.

Sense 3: A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action [...].

So, there is no "period" about which one is the right sense, you need to pay attention to the context of use, however, there is a more fundamental sense (sense 1).

Not being able to exercise your rights, one or all, is a separate question or problem. This is because government does not grant them--nor does another person; they are tied directly into your nature and social needs as a human being amongst other human beings. If this were not so, the mere act of a rights' violation would make the issue of rights mute. Fighting for your rights would be a contradiction.

--Brant

Yes, rights are objective moral absolutes.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

In addition, the moral sanction of property as such is problematic when you consider the history of property itself:

Ludwig von Mises writes:

"Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor." (LvM)

https://mises.org/humanaction/chap24sec4.asp

Mises is correct. Private property is not "sacred"; it is not an institution decreed and sanctioned by God -- as many earlier defenders of private property had argued. It is an institution created by humans -- a "human device," as Mises puts it.

The term "private property" can be used in two senses. It can refer to the general institution of private property, or it can refer to specific property titles (legal claims to particular items of property). That Mises was thinking primarily of the latter becomes evident when we read the passage that immediately follows the one you quoted (my italics):

However, the fact that legal formalism can trace back every title either to arbitrary appropriation or to violent expropriation has no significance whatever for the conditions of a market society. Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind's history, are no longer of any concern for our day.

Mises overstates the case, but his point has some credibility when speaking about property titles to land, especially in Europe. For example, in feudal Europe we find we find vast areas of land with illegitimate tiles claimed by feudal lords and monarchs, much of which was acquired by conquest and other forms of violence. With the rise of market economies, however, and with the diminishing influence of primogeniture and entail, much of this land was sold to private owners. But since the feudal owners had no legitimate title to the land in the first place, it could be argued that the subsequent purchasers could not claim legitimate titles, either. This was essentially the argument that Herbert Spencer used in his call for the nationalization of land in Social Statics -- a position he later retreated from somewhat.

For the record, I don't agree with this argument. I'm just stating what is was.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Given the recklessness with which you've interpreted what I've written so far, there's no chance in hell I'm going further down this path.

Fine with me.

Your writing is not nearly as clear as you think it is. We have encountered this problem before.

Ghs

George, I agree that you're a master at writing and I'm a novice. All I can do is my best. Are you doing your best to give due benefit the doubt when interpreting what others write? Or are you just primed to pounce on anything and everything that doesn't land perfectly into your brain?

You're not totally at fault here, I made a mistake, and you caught it. You'd make a fantastic editor. But I was not unclear enough to warrant the litany of misrepresentations you've engaged in here.

Shayne

I will attempt to give your posts more "sympathetic" readings in the future.

Ghs

[sjw]

Mises is correct. Private property is not "sacred"; it is not an institution decreed and sanctioned by God -- as many earlier defenders of private property had argued. It is an institution created by humans -- a "human device," as Mises puts it.

There are multiple senses of the word "sacred", here are several from dictionary.com:

1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.

6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

If you want to spin Mises' statement that he was just responding to religion, that doesn't answer why he didn't say that property rights were of the highest moral importance. I mean, IF he was trying to refute religion, then he should have taken care not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

...

For the record, I don't agree with this argument. I'm just stating what is was.

Ghs

Yes, well, IF he meant only to talk about land titles (something I doubt), then there is certainly a sense in which those are arbitrary.

It is interesting how good you are at proffering massive piles of benefit of the doubt when you read the works of incontestably revered libertarian heroes.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Mises is correct. Private property is not "sacred"; it is not an institution decreed and sanctioned by God -- as many earlier defenders of private property had argued. It is an institution created by humans -- a "human device," as Mises puts it.

There are multiple senses of the word "sacred"....

I am well aware of the different meaning of "sacred," having gone through a debate on this very topic recently with Xray. The way you determine which meaning is meant is to look at the context. Mises specifically contrasts "sacred" with "human."

It is interesting how good you are at proffering massive piles of benefit of the doubt when you read the works of incontestably revered libertarian heroes.

Some people have earned sympathetic readings, and some haven't. But there is nothing especially sympathetic about my reading of Mises. He was a free-market utilitarian, and he had a typically utilitarian approach to the subject of private property -- an approach that I do not agree with. Nevertheless, there is no attempt by Mises here to denigrate the importance of private property, as the subsequent paragraph -- not to mention many other things he wrote -- makes clear.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Regarding use of the word "sacred" by Mises:

In Socialism (Liberty Fund ed., p. 33), Mises contrasts his approach to private property with "the old belief which traced social institutions back to divine sources or at least to the enlightenment which came to man through divine inspiration."

Mises also comments (p. 32) on the argument by socialists that private property is rooted in violence and appropriation: "But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified."

The passage previously quoted from Human Action is essentially a truncated version of the longer discussion in Socialism. It is based to some extent on a misunderstanding of the natural law tradition.

Ghs

[sjw]

Some people have earned sympathetic readings, and some haven't.

And I take it that I'm one who hasn't earned any with you.

Since being burned in my "sympathetic" reading of Peikoff (and to some extent, Ayn Rand), I've tried to learn to reject both sympathetic and unsympathetic reading. Instead I try to be objective and fair.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

If you are dead you have nothing, including rights, and that was a little disingenuous, Shayne.

--Brant

[sjw]

If you are dead you have nothing, including rights, and that was a little disingenuous, Shayne.

--Brant

At least I demonstrated that I understood your point, which is far better than I seem to get. Don't be greedy.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Some people have earned sympathetic readings, and some haven't.

And I take it that I'm one who hasn't earned any with you.

Since being burned in my "sympathetic" reading of Peikoff (and to some extent, Ayn Rand), I've tried to learn to reject both sympathetic and unsympathetic reading. Instead I try to be objective and fair.

Shayne

Reading and understanding a masterpiece like Human Action is much different than reading quickly-written posts in which people frequently "think out loud." There is nothing wrong with the latter, of course, but I am more likely to take posts at face value, rather than trouble myself with some alternative or deeper meaning that I might have missed.

Moreover, with Mises we have a vast body of work, and this enables us to compare a given interpretation with what he wrote elsewhere.

Lastly, is it really that much of an insult to be told that you have not earned the same degree of intellectual respect that we owe to Ludwig von Mises? I would say the same thing about myself, and I've published a lot more than you have. You are not in his league, I am not in his league, and neither is anyone else on OL.

Ghs

[Xray]

Yes, rights are objective moral absolutes.

Going by this premise of yours, everyone can hold the rights they happen to approve of as being "objective moral absolutes". Even worse, every kind of right listed in whatever system can be claimed to be an "objective moral absolute".

Please check your premises, Shayne. For if you don't, it will land you in a jungle of conflicting "objective moral absolutes" where I'm sure you don't want to be.

Stephan Kinsella (post # 172):

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises. As for your denigrating comment: ""property" resides as the ultimate, sacred value. " -- this is just a disguised way to say that you are in favor of aggression in some cases. Covering it up by saying you don't hold property as "ultimate" or something is just one way to avoid admitting you favor criminality. This is akin to conservatives who denigrate Objectivists and libertarians as upholding liberty as "the only" value, which is a lie. The conservative says sure, sure, we favor liberty--but we have other values too; liberty is just one among many. We have to balance them. Or whatever. This is just a way to disguise the naked aggression of their stance: that they are (for whatever reason--who cares?) in favor of violating liberty in some cases. The libertarian is never JUST a libertarian; liberty (property, rights, whatever) is not our "only" value. It is not even our "top" value, whatever that means. It is just that we oppose aggression--we believe aggression is unjust. Period. Those who say they ahve "other" values or "yeah, I favor property but it's not 'sacred'" are just trying to avoid saying that in some cases, they do in fact favor the commission of violence against innocent people. In this respect they are identical to criminals and totalitarians and socialists: all of whom believe in aggression for one reason or another. As a victim of it, i don't give a damn that your own justification is "beter" than that of another criminal.

This post is so full of non-sequiturs that I find it difficult where to begin.

In this case, the best way is to address your assertions point per point.

What struck me was the emotional upsetness palpable in your post, so I asked myself what could have triggered it. Going through your post piece by will help me to pin it down.

The quote by mises is not denigrating property at all--just talking about how it arises.

No objection from me. Your point being?

As for your denigrating comment: ""property" resides as the ultimate, sacred value.

Why do you think this is a "denigrating" comment? I have no problem with people holding values like property as sacred, as long as they don't try to shove them down my throat.

this is just a disguised way to say that you are in favor of aggression in some cases.

This is a non-sequitur of course. How you can infer from my not thinking of property as sacred that I favor agression in some cases is a mystery to me.

So would you please elaborate.

Covering it up by saying you don't hold property as "ultimate" or something is just one way to avoid admitting you favor criminality.

See above. That I favor criminality by not holding property as an ultimate value is a total non-sequitur on your part. Tolstoj for example gave away all his property - do you infer from this act that he favored criminality?

This is akin to conservatives who denigrate Objectivists and libertarians as upholding liberty as "the only" value, which is a lie.

The "value" arguments Conservatives bring up against Objectivists and Liberatianis interest me only insofar as they are classic cases of one fallacy fighting another. The fallacy lies in presenting one's subjective preferences as "objective values".

More tomorrow.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

If you are dead you have nothing, including rights, and that was a little disingenuous, Shayne.

--Brant

If by "rights" we mean rights, or titles, to property, then they can continue after your death. You can bequeath them to your heirs.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If you are dead you have nothing, including rights, and that was a little disingenuous, Shayne.

--Brant

At least I demonstrated that I understood your point, which is far better than I seem to get. Don't be greedy.

LOL

My day is so chopped up I haven't had time not to be greedy, but to continue: I have no real issue with your three senses of rights. I think the second one has been understated in its importance for it implies strongly how right it is to be "greedy." When we undertake non-interfering actions respecting others, we are embracing selfishness in the sense Rand really meant.

--Brant

should have meant?

Edited December 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

If you are dead you have nothing, including rights, and that was a little disingenuous, Shayne.

--Brant

If by "rights" we mean rights, or titles, to property, then they can continue after your death. You can bequeath them to your heirs.

Ghs

The rights have been transferred.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

If you are dead you have nothing, including rights, and that was a little disingenuous, Shayne.

--Brant

If by "rights" we mean rights, or titles, to property, then they can continue after your death. You can bequeath them to your heirs.

Ghs

The rights have been transferred.

Yes, of course, but the property rights still exist -- unlike, say, your right to life. There is no way to transfer that to anyone else; hence the term inalienable rights.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Good and subtle point.

--Brant

[sjw]

Lastly, is it really that much of an insult to be told that you have not earned the same degree of intellectual respect that we owe to Ludwig von Mises? I would say the same thing about myself, and I've published a lot more than you have. You are not in his league, I am not in his league, and neither is anyone else on OL.

Ghs

I don't know much about Mises. I find his defense of liberalism admirable, particularly given his time. I do not find Human Action to be very helpful, I had no desire to finish reading it after having read the first 100 pages or so. I deeply admire and respect Ayn Rand's incredible productiveness and indomitable tenacity, and other achievements of hers. But her "league"? That's irrelevant to me; I'll criticize her words equally to yours, or to anyone else's. For one thing, I don't think Rand was nearly as rational as she liked to think.

It's easy to worship dead authors. That's why so many people do it. I don't think such worship leads to good results. So no, I don't put Mises or Rand on a pedestal.

Shayne