Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:19:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.comNOMORESPAM
|
Viewed:
|
1264 times
|
| |
|
|
Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> I think what this is really about is how highly do you rate property rights.
> Larry seems to be arguing that the right to property superceeds
> everything else.
Not exactly. More like it IS everything else. Any right I recognise,
ultimately, is a property right or can be reduced to one.
>
> It's impossible to say what's right in this hypothetical situation, since
> so much depends on other hypothetical facts that haven't been
> stated.
>
> BUT... _IF_ there is an ultimate human right then I would say that right
> is to do with having the opportunity to grow and develop as a human being.
> To be able to interact with other people - to learn to love others and to be
> loved, to develop friendships, to make decisions and accept
> responsibility for the consequences. In short - to have the chance to
> lead a fulfilling life.
Well, here we go round the mulberry bush again, :-) but as I stated in
the past, I don't accept the above as a right, at least not exactly. It
seems to slide down into "well if a person doesn't get free medical care
they can't develop friendships" rather easily. And we already have seen
that free medical care is a free good and I don't recognise those. I'm
recapitulating so it may be a bit too fast, statement-wise...
I guess I am back to the basics of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness, which I posit are isomorphic to, or at least derivable from,
that single property right I refer to above.
> Now we generally accept property rights because experience shows
> that granting property rights is in most cases vitally important in
> ensuring the kind of social framework that let's people develop in
> the way I've just described. But the key is it's a derived right.
In your moral system. Which is flawed, in my moral system. :-)
> It seems to me that Larry is trying to turn property rights into THE
> fundamental right from which everything else is derived.
Yes.
> And
> it also seems to me that to do so is to devalue our humanity. There
> is far more to life than simply owning material goods, and to try
> to base everything on having the right to own goods is
> spiritually empty (religious language) or lacking in humanity
> (secular language).
This would be true if property rights were merely the right to own
goods. But they are fundamentally the right to determine what to do with
one's SELF as well as one's goods.
> This hypothetical example of the drugger
> is a good case where perhaps you need to remember that
> property rights are important as long as they help in the maintenance
> of a stable society that assists people to live fulfilling lives. A less
> hypothetical example is perhaps East Timor, where the right
> of the people of East Timor to live arguably overrides the rights
> of the militia there to own certain property items (ie. the gun's
> they're using to kill the local inhabitants).
The right to own a gun does not equate to the "right" to initiate the
use of force against others, we've been down that road before too. There
IS no right to initiate the use of force against others, because to do
so is to violate the ultimate property right, that is, the right to be
left alone to one's own devices and not be deprived of the property of
one's own life.
> Perhaps I'm mistaken in what Larry is arguing (it'd be interesting
> to see a statement of what Larry believes, or of where the Libertarian
> party gets it's principles from - perhaps there is one lurking around
> here which I've missed).
You're not mistaken in the basic premise I use, but some of your
derivations are faulty. If you see contradiction, at least one of your
premises is wrong. Check your premises and rework the derivation.
I believe I've summed up my beliefs before, though.
Boiled down to buzzwords: "free minds and free markets".
Axiomatically: "all have the right to do as they wish so long as they do
not infringe on the rights of others to do the same"
Or the isomorphism: "no one has the right to initiate the use of force"
Or the isomorphism: "all rights are property rights"
Starting from any of the three, all my other stances can be derived
logically.
Summarily:
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=2237
As to the LP's principles and where they derive from the best ref I can
give is their site, http://www.lp.org but it doesn't do a lot of
philosophical derivation. Libertarianism is a bit more pragmatic and
utility based than I am, I tend to be a bit rigid and rights based.
"Libertarianisn in one lesson" by Bergland and "Libertarianism: A
Primer" by Boaz spring to mind. Boaz is VP of the Cato Institute and
Bergland is a former Prez candidate.
Dunno if this will work for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-5315264-7549807
if not, go to amazon, put "libertarianism" in the search field, restrict
to books and go.... the primer is part way down. Go to it and one of the
"other books" listed is the Bergland book.
Hope that helps
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
