Civil Disobedience

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

Some do not own property by choice, others because of circumstance. all people however are morally justified to claim property through virtue of first use or contract.

This does not answer the question. Why do some have property and others not? Of course circumstance is at play, having property or not having property is a circumstance influenced by other circumstances. And some people may decide not to own a home because they prefer to rent apartments.

But that's not the issue. On any given day some people starve and others eat enough for ten because the one has nothing and the other has plenty and poor self control. Choice does not determine the difference between a homeless man and an estate owner. Circumstance, of course, does, but what sort of circumstance?

As for the moral justifications of property ownership, you say first use and contract. It seems to me contract is an extension of first use; whoever owns thanks to first use may pass on that ownership at his discretion according to some contract. So let me cut right to the issue: why does first use justify ownership?

For instance, if I am the first to drink out of some river, should the river's water from then on be mine unless I pass that right to some other soul?

Think for a moment of simple land ownership. I enjoy the Jeffersonian ideal as much as anyone else, maybe a little more, but I think there are some serious problems. The earth is a certain size, no larger, and there is only so much ground to stand on, build a home on, cultivate, ect. We are all human, none of us being more intrinsically valuable than the next. Being human, we all depend upon the earth for life, yet some have a greater share of the earth than others. Instead of sharing the resources collectively, we tend to set up boundaries; if you have, you live, if you have not, you starve. If you have, you can protect your source of life by force, if you have not, you can do little to gain a share of that source of life.

I'm familiar with the liberal rhetoric regarding property rights, but not familiar with explanations as to why it is just that those who have more stuff have more rights, and those with less stuff have fewer rights.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm familiar with the liberal rhetoric regarding property rights, but not familiar with explanations as to why it is just that those who have more stuff have more rights, and those with less stuff have fewer rights.

In practice those with less do have less rights than those with much, but this is not because of the property rights. It is because we refuse to disallow violence in commerce. We have over the years made the violence less bloody, more "civilized" and structured. The mercenaries wear suits, they wield briefs, and subpoenas instead of knives and clubs. But failure to comply ultimately results in violence.

We have hidden it so well that most of us don't even realize that it is in fact violence and that it is morally treacherous. Legal action is seen as just one more tool of capitalism but it is not. It is a hold over from the old law of might, somewhat mitigated by modern polity.

There is a valid realm for the law but our structure allows one to buy disproportionate use of Leviathan's maw. For a few dollars you can have it gnaw on anyone you choose.

The reason to accept property right in some form is simply that humans operate better with property rights than without them. They allow a moral root upon which the structure of trade can reward those who serve others best. The implications of Capitalist, and Liberal (classical) ideals in general are often misunderstood because it is difficult to separate actions required by these ideals, and the behaviors derived from older philosophical legacies.

If one could not purchase violence, nor use it oneself, the results of property rights (no mater the source) serves to elevate everyone's economic status in the long run. Exactly to the extent that violence is banished from out social tool set society prospers and general happiness improves. This is validated by history fairly well, but more importantly the deductive chain from these base principles leads clearly to the conclusion as well.

The prohibition of exercise of power (violence) is the most important root of Liberal thought, all other Liberal values stem from this precept including property rights.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

In practice those with less do have less rights than those with much, but this is not because of the property rights. It is because we refuse to disallow violence in commerce. We have over the years made the violence less bloody, more "civilized" and structured. The mercenaries wear suits, they wield briefs, and subpoenas instead of knives and clubs. But failure to comply ultimately results in violence.

I agree the the problems are exacerbated by our outrageous modern legal system. However, I have to worry about violence and commerce. I get what you are saying, but if the solution is to disallow violence in commerce, how do we go about doing such a thing? Is there some line we can draw between non-violent commerce and violent commerce that could be enforced?

Commerce seems to be essentially competition. When this competition, and the success of said competition, determines the shape of one's life, it seems only natural that said commerce will become violent.

Quote:

The reason to accept property right in some form is simply that humans operate better with property rights than without them. They allow a moral root upon which the structure of trade can reward those who serve others best. The implications of Capitalist, and Liberal (classical) ideals in general are often misunderstood because it is difficult to separate actions required by these ideals, and the behaviors derived from older philosophical legacies.

Better as opposed to what? To my knowledge, Proudhon's suggestions have never serious been implemented. And every communist I know ardently stands by his claim that no government has ever been an actual communist government. I agree that modern, liberal notions of property rights are superior to prior systems used in government of which we have a great deal of knowledge. But the leap from classical liberal property rights being better than any other implemented system to classical liberal property rights being better than any alternative will take some more explanation.

I do have to object to the idea that CL property rights "allow a moral root upon which the structure of trade can reward those who serve others best". They do root people to their property, obviously. But what is moral about this system? More importantly, what makes this morally superior to alternatives?

Why, for example, are CL property rights more moral than, say, communal ownership of property in small, local groups? And why would CL property rights allow for trade to be structured to better serve the people than this particular alternative? Wouldn't such a group be more influenced by the needs of the commune than the personal greed of some merchant?

I agree that mitigating violence is supremely important in a liberal society. But I'm just not convinced that the more popular notions of property rights are appropriate in a liberal society. Again, if I am the first to drink from a river, why should I, by virtue of first use, have claim to the whole river? I obviously cannot drink all of it's water, nor fish all of it's stock, nor even cultivate the whole length of it's shores without employees. But what right do I have to skim off the top of those employee's work simply because I was first to drink of the river and they were second?

Property rights are supposed to be natural rights, but given they extent to which they extend they seem to be anything but natural.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Why, for example, are CL property rights more moral than, say, communal ownership of property in small, local groups? And why would CL property rights allow for trade to be structured to better serve the people than this particular alternative? Wouldn't such a group be more influenced by the needs of the commune than the personal greed of some merchant?

There is nothing in my moral system that would deny the right of some people to act collectively though explicit contracts, as such would be found in cooperatives and communes. This collective however can only claim property by first use or contract. Assuming this property through force or taxation is as immoral as common theft.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I agree that mitigating violence is supremely important in a liberal society. But I'm just not convinced that the more popular notions of property rights are appropriate in a liberal society. Again, if I am the first to drink from a river, why should I, by virtue of first use, have claim to the whole river? I obviously cannot drink all of it's water, nor fish all of it's stock, nor even cultivate the whole length of it's shores without employees. But what right do I have to skim off the top of those employee's work simply because I was first to drink of the river and they were second?

You'd have the right to try to claim it, but you would have to take some action to make this claim clear. For such thing as you can cart off, you need only to cart it off, for land and water more permanent and prominent claims are needed such as fences, roads, corner posts, dams, public declaration of the claim.

As for you charge of the capitalist skimming off the labor of worker, it is false. The labor theory of value is false. The capitalist makes his money due to two facts. First is risk, and the second is the fact that current goods are more valuable than future goods. That is when you want something, you want it now and don't want to wait the three weeks for it to be produced. Because the good is current and actual in the market it is worth more than the goods and labor used to make it. Of course a consumer could purchase the very same material and labor, but they would have to wait to get what they wanted. It is the same reason you gain interest on savings, and pay interest on loans.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Property rights are supposed to be natural rights, but given they extent to which they extend they seem to be anything but natural.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm familiar with the liberal rhetoric regarding property rights, but not familiar with explanations as to why it is just that those who have more stuff have more rights, and those with less stuff have fewer rights.

Do you think it unjust that some people have more consensual sex than others after I have claimed people have the moral right to engage in consensual sex?

People don't have any inherent right to particular property unless it is justly claimed (Just like I don't have the right to have sex with any particular person unless they consent) but only the right to claim property if currently unowned and to contract with others to gain property or use of property.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I agree the the problems are exacerbated by our outrageous modern legal system. However, I have to worry about violence and commerce. I get what you are saying, but if the solution is to disallow violence in commerce, how do we go about doing such a thing? Is there some line we can draw between non-violent commerce and violent commerce that could be enforced?

Commerce seems to be essentially competition. When this competition, and the success of said competition, determines the shape of one's life, it seems only natural that said commerce will become violent.

It is natural for any interaction to try to become violent. A capitalist economy would require protection by laws against unequal taxation, violence, and fraud.

Preventing the corruption of these laws in a democratic type of government would be difficult, we could try a constitutional amendment.

The biggest problem is in civil law, which leaks government power. I'm not sure how to address that. Perhaps by restructuring all civil law into a criminal structure. As in: the local chemical plant knowingly dumps toxic waste, the responsible parties and the top layer of management (regardless of their state of knowledge) would go to jail.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Better as opposed to what? To my knowledge, Proudhon's suggestions have never serious been implemented. And every communist I know ardently stands by his claim that no government has ever been an actual communist government. I agree that modern, liberal notions of property rights are superior to prior systems used in government of which we have a great deal of knowledge. But the leap from classical liberal property rights being better than any other implemented system to classical liberal property rights being better than any alternative will take some more explanation.

The advantage of capitalism/liberty is that it is inherently non-violent, which gives it a moral advantage in my eyes. As for pragmatism it is as you say, it is untested, as is communism.

I am dubious that communism can survive cheating in the long run, at a large scale (I have more faith in capitalism.) Communism and Capitalism are both deserving of threads of their own.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I do have to object to the idea that CL property rights "allow a moral root upon which the structure of trade can reward those who serve others best". They do root people to their property, obviously. But what is moral about this system? More importantly, what makes this morally superior to alternatives?

Why, for example, are CL property rights more moral than, say, communal ownership of property in small, local groups? And why would CL property rights allow for trade to be structured to better serve the people than this particular alternative? Wouldn't such a group be more influenced by the needs of the commune than the personal greed of some merchant?

This is an excellent question, and is I believe one of the most crucial to understanding Liberal/Capitalist thought. The answer is also tied to market competition, and what it truly is that is different from other forms of human competition.

If a person is restricted to peaceful means (that is all forms of violence including abuse of law are precluded) then one must compete with other folks by maximizing ones own utility to other people. In pure capitalism the only reason for anyone to give you anything of theirs is in exchange for some good you are providing in exchange. Therefore your own wealth will grow in proportion to the service you offer to society, and shrink in proportion to the lack of such contribution.

Capitalism is the only known social structure which can maximize the incentive to serve others , and is scalable to a society of any size. That is the incentives do not change at very large or very small scales.

Local, or familial communism can function well, but there are grave difficulties with cheaters that increase as more people enter the society. Communism incentivises cheating over maximizing one's contribution, and especially to the extent that other's level of cheating is hard to determine.

As for "greedy" merchants, greed is the desire for reward without investment. Capitalism is the biggest threat to the greedy of any econo-legal structure. The situation we have now in the US for example is very rewarding of the greedy, because of the myriad incestuous relationships between government and business (that is the corruption of commerce by violence.)

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Property rights are supposed to be natural rights, but given they extent to which they extend they seem to be anything but natural.

"Natural rights" is a bull**** concept. Rights are agreed upon, that's all. There may be more or less moral or pragmatic argument in support of one given legal right over another, but all legal rights are by contract whether explicit or implicit.

1 Reply

@Quatl,

There's a fatal flaw in your brand of libertarianism, and I hope to expose it in one exchange.

Quatl wrote:

"Natural rights" is a bull**** concept. Rights are agreed upon, that's all. There may be more or less moral or pragmatic argument in support of one given legal right over another, but all legal rights are by contract whether explicit or implicit.

Rights Agreed upon by who?

If rights are only granted by contract (which are by nature consensual), what moral basis do you have to enforce law? Quite obviously a criminal would never contract to be punished for crime.

1 Reply

@WorBlux,

WorBlux wrote:

Rights Agreed upon by who?

If rights are only granted by contract (which are by nature consensual), what moral basis do you have to enforce law? Quite obviously a criminal would never contract to be punished for crime.

Legal rights are agreed upon, often implicitly, by members of a society. They are determined by compliance, if enough members of the society implicitly or explicitly reject a given "right" or embrace a new one, it is eventually given social or legal status as a "right" through the usual forms of law making in the society (or loses such status as appropriate.)

There are good reasons to accord certain laws a higher importance than others as some are more important to the functioning of the societies members. Once a law is labeled a "right" normal law is no longer deemed able to overrule it.

A criminal is someone who refuses, implicitly by their actions, to abide by the societies social contract. By failing to abide they receive instead the default "natural" status accorded by humans to "outsiders" which is some variation on violent restraint. In most modern societies this involves sanctions like fines, and prison for most infractions, traditionally more aggressive options were more common, such as beatings, exile, and death.

My attitude on this is pretty much a pragmatic "realist" one. If you believe you have a right and everyone systematically violates it, how is the situation different than if you had not that right at all?

I think the concept is invalid, beyond shorthand for "very important law." Now if you can convince me otherwise that would be very helpful, as I miss out on a lot of the delicious self-righteous anger other people get to feel on the matter.

1 Reply

@Quatl,

Quatl wrote:

Legal rights are agreed upon, often implicitly, by members of a society. They are determined by compliance, if enough members of the society implicitly or explicitly reject a given "right" or embrace a new one, it is eventually given social or legal status as a "right" through the usual forms of law making in the society (or loses such status as appropriate.)

There are good reasons to accord certain laws a higher importance than others as some are more important to the functioning of the societies members. Once a law is labeled a "right" normal law is no longer deemed able to overrule it.

A criminal is someone who refuses, implicitly by their actions, to abide by the societies social contract. By failing to abide they receive instead the default "natural" status accorded by humans to "outsiders" which is some variation on violent restraint. In most modern societies this involves sanctions like fines, and prison for most infractions, traditionally more aggressive options were more common, such as beatings, exile, and death.

My attitude on this is pretty much a pragmatic "realist" one. If you believe you have a right and everyone systematically violates it, how is the situation different than if you had not that right at all?

I think the concept is invalid, beyond shorthand for "very important law." Now if you can convince me otherwise that would be very helpful, as I miss out on a lot of the delicious self-righteous anger other people get to feel on the matter.

I don't think you should overlook the argument from morality, because it is a very powerful agent of change. Your question was "If you believe you have a right and everyone systematically violates it, how is the situation different than if you had not that right at all?"

The difference is if you have evidence and logic supporting this right, and can show people who have means contradicing their ends, and that such violations are immoral, then there are very few people who will continue to do what they know to be immoral.

If you look at it from a utilitarian standpoint, then all the more powerfully thing you can say is "most people would be better off if we did it this way" but the fact is that there are some people that greatly benefit from a welfare-warfare state and are not likely to give their cushioned positions for a possible improvement for most other people. More effective is to show to people just how corrupt these people in cushioned positions are.

Furthermore by buying into social contract theory you've bought into the moral justification of a immoral system, and all you can do is jump up and down and scream that it would be better for us to contract to do it a different way. However to do this you must work against 15 or more years or indoctrination against the free market, and all the self-interest of the current elites. (That is by defining the status quo as justified, you throw away the strongest arguments for the free market and capitalism)

Proving Libertarian Morality by Stefan Molyneux

Quote:

In conclusion, it is safe to say that (a) moral rules exist, and (b) moral theories must be subjected to the scientific method, just as theories of physics and biology. Furthermore, any moral theory based on non-universal or self-contradictory principles is demonstrably false.
If libertarianism is to succeed, we must examine all moral theories and commandments in this light - otherwise we relinquish moral truth to our enemies, which will only ensure our continued failure.
To further reinforce the value of this point, we shall do just this in our next conversation: the application of the scientific method to the Ten Commandments, to see which can be considered valid.

The Argument From Morality by Stefan Molyneux

Quote:

At the end of my article "Forget the Argument from Efficiency," I promised to write about the argument from morality - which is also, in my view, how we will win - and so here it is.
The argument from morality is the most powerful tool in any freedom-lovers ars-enal - but also the most personally costly, since it draws lines in relationships that can never be erased. The argument from morality can cost you friends, family, community - and so approach it with courage, and understand that, once you decide to use it, your life will never again be the same.
Simply put, the argument from morality is the most powerful approach to changing society because all major social decisions are made on the basis of ethics. If a population believes that a certain program is moral - i.e. war, welfare, social security and so on - then they may grumble, but they will also roll up their sleeves, get to work and support it no matter what their personal cost. Men will go off to war, mothers will turn their kids over to nannies, people will surrender massive portions of their income and freedom with nary a protest - all in the name of what is good.

Forget The Argument From Efficiency by Stefan Molyneux

Quote:

In conclusion, it is high time that freedom advocates bid a fond farewell to the argument from economic efficiency. It has been an instructive exercise for us to prove - at least to ourselves - that the free market can indeed provide the goods and services currently inflicted on society by brute state power, but it will never be stirring enough to motivate a larger movement. In the difficult march to a freer world, we need a more powerful banner. The argument from consistency is a good first step - but our true banner is not efficiency, or consistency, but the morality and goodness which naturally stirs and rouses to action every noble intent in the hearts of men.

1 Reply

@WorBlux,

WorBlux,
I am confused as to how what you've said relates to the "natural rights" concept. I didn't say anything about moral arguments being invalid in general. As for rights, I think they have to be justified on rational grounds. I didn't look into the links you posted (yet) but the quotes you offer don't mention "natural rights." The author seems a bit overly optimistic to me about the moralism of the general populace though.

I just don't buy that rights are anymore natural than their own violation. Naturalness has nothing what so ever to do with goodness.

I am not a crusader for libertarian Ideals, I just explain them as I see them when people ask. Obviously I do have great sympathy for many liberal ideals, but libertarian reform is unrealistic as a goal at this time. People in general do not appear to really want to be free, it's too big of a responsibility. Folks hate that responsibility stuff.

1 Reply

@Quatl,

Quatl wrote:

WorBlux,
I am confused as to how what you've said relates to the "natural rights" concept. I didn't say anything about moral arguments being invalid in general. As for rights, I think they have to be justified on rational grounds. I didn't look into the links you posted (yet) but the quotes you offer don't mention "natural rights." The author seems a bit overly optimistic to me about the moralism of the general populace though.

I just don't buy that rights are anymore natural than their own violation. Naturalness has nothing what so ever to do with goodness.

I am not a crusader for libertarian Ideals, I just explain them as I see them when people ask. Obviously I do have great sympathy for many liberal ideals, but libertarian reform is unrealistic as a goal at this time. People in general do not appear to really want to be free, it's too big of a responsibility. Folks hate that responsibility stuff.

I guess I misunderstood your position a little.

Yes they do have to be justified by reason, and you can build up a system of morality based on reason. The natural rights would be those things people are allowed to morally defend under such a system. Now while you point out that morality is optional (following being natural as well as not following it) this does not mean valid moral laws cannot be extracted and held . If moral laws exist they are be their nature objective since moral statements claim to apply universally to all people, and claim to be statements of preferenable behavior (it is better for everyone not to steal than it is for them to steal). By natural rights all I mean is those things that are deemed worthy of protection and defensive force by moral laws derived from properties of human beings.

The libertarian idea isn't just to let people run their lives to maximum value, but that such a system is the only one that is morally justified.

The reform is going to take a long time and it will be tough, and the only way any reform has ever succeeded is by seizing the moral high ground. And yes sadly many people have been contorted and manipulated into rejecting all of their feelings and initiatives. People do not want to be free because to do so they must stop acting like a slave, and if they do that almost every single relationship they have will not survive.

1 Reply

@WorBlux,

WorBlux wrote:

I guess I misunderstood your position a little.

Yes they do have to be justified by reason, and you can build up a system of morality based on reason. The natural rights would be those things people are allowed to morally defend under such a system. Now while you point out that morality is optional (following being natural as well as not following it) this does not mean valid moral laws cannot be extracted and held . If moral laws exist they are be their nature objective since moral statements claim to apply universally to all people, and claim to be statements of preferenable behavior (it is better for everyone not to steal than it is for them to steal). By natural rights all I mean is those things that are deemed worthy of protection and defensive force by moral laws derived from properties of human beings.

I agree. My trouble with the terminology is that it is often used to cover the holes in rational support for a given moral proposition. I have a similar problem with religious based moral statements.

There are "rights" that I believe in enough that I would fight and possibly risk death to defend. I see these as points beyond which I cannot compromise. I am lucky that the country I live in does not pass beyond these points because I would certainly lose. I think it cheapens the debate to not acknowledge that people have feelings like this about various interactions, possibly different ones than mine.

Moral debate is important enough to forgo the "magic words" which are useful in rhetoric. "Natural" is one of these words.

WorBlux wrote:

The libertarian idea isn't just to let people run their lives to maximum value, but that such a system is the only one that is morally justified.

I don't disagree. The bulk of my original post here was about one aspect of why it is morally justified. I believe that if there is a purpose to human life, it is to minimize the evil we do in life. Laws rooted in freedom, and personal responsibility, along with free economics are the best way I know to achieve this.

WorBlux wrote:

The reform is going to take a long time and it will be tough, and the only way any reform has ever succeeded is by seizing the moral high ground. And yes sadly many people have been contorted and manipulated into rejecting all of their feelings and initiatives. People do not want to be free because to do so they must stop acting like a slave, and if they do that almost every single relationship they have will not survive.

I am glad that there are folks such as yourself that have hope. I may be too jaded, but I fear that things will have to get a lot worse before enough people are ready to really look at why they should give up their mutually cannibalistic economic attitudes.

In the US, where I live, a great many people who really want to do the right thing are blinded by history. The interweaving of commerce with violence is something they can't imagine being undone. Many of the ills attributed to money are the ills of permissive violence. Neither of our major political parties are much help sorting out the corruption as they both philosophically embrace it as "the way it is."

The populace in general is not philosophically receptive either. Maybe the threads can be disentangled but I am doubtful.

I make a somewhat bizarre advocate for capitalism anyway as I am not all that interested in money or material rewards. I feel imprisoned by possessions to large degree. I don't desire wealth beyond freedom from constant need. I think I was "supposed" to be a hippy but I just couldn't avoid my own moral reasoning.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So, is civil disobedience acceptable? and if so, under what conditions?

I would have to say that civil disobedience is acceptable under all conditions.

Government is simply a byword for an all-powerful monopolistic organization that attempts to control your life. It is not based on a social contract. It is not based on the consent of all that are ruled under it. If you try to break away from it, you are persecuted and eventually imprisoned or killed.

1 Reply

@krazy kaju,

I think the reclaiming of philosophy from the aristocracy is the route to take if you think that peoples are simply subjugated by whatever controlling force there is.

0 Replies

Civil Disobedience

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know