Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree32Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 5th, 2017, 11:58 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,588
The Libertarian Error: Locke And The Natural Right To Property

The fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking is its failure to take into account the interdependent nature of social life and, in particular, how property is acquired, and must be acquired, in a settled society.

We are all born propertyless.

This is as true for the person who eventually becomes a billionaire as it is for the impoverished. The only way to acquire property in a settled society, where all the natural resources have been divvied up and are already owned by someone, is to acquire it from those who already have it. Those who cannot acquire property from those who own it will die.

If we now say that property owners have the right to do whatever they like with their property – share it or not, hire people or not – this is as much as to say that they have the right to determine, at their sole discretion, who, among those who do not yet have property, shall live and who shall die, who shall prosper and who shall founder, who shall have the opportunity to fulfill their potentialities and whose potentialities shall be quashed. In effect, it is to say that property owners have a right to establish a tyranny over everyone else.

In other words, to grant that people have the property rights that libertarians claim is to grant that some (the propertied) have the right to deprive others of the very things libertarians themselves generally claim we all have a right to – life, liberty, and property.

But this amounts to a contradiction. By definition, no one can have a right to deprive others of those things they have a right to.

It follows that there must be a flaw in the libertarian understanding of the right to property – and indeed there is. Wherein lies this flaw? To answer this we need to take a closer look at what the ‘right to property’ really means.

The Libertarian Error ? Political Animal Magazine
Thanks from right to left
skews13 is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 12:03 PM   #2
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,216
I disagree with some of the basic premises of that OP.

How many live a satisfying life without property, working for the propertied, renting their living space from the propertied and such.

And the propertied, without labor and support would end up on a subsistence farm on all their property, or if their property was an idle factory, they too would starve to death.
RNG is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 12:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
The fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking is its failure to take into account the interdependent nature of social life and, in particular, how property is acquired, and must be acquired, in a settled society.

We are all born propertyless.

This is as true for the person who eventually becomes a billionaire as it is for the impoverished. The only way to acquire property in a settled society, where all the natural resources have been divvied up and are already owned by someone, is to acquire it from those who already have it. Those who cannot acquire property from those who own it will die.

If we now say that property owners have the right to do whatever they like with their property – share it or not, hire people or not – this is as much as to say that they have the right to determine, at their sole discretion, who, among those who do not yet have property, shall live and who shall die, who shall prosper and who shall founder, who shall have the opportunity to fulfill their potentialities and whose potentialities shall be quashed. In effect, it is to say that property owners have a right to establish a tyranny over everyone else.

In other words, to grant that people have the property rights that libertarians claim is to grant that some (the propertied) have the right to deprive others of the very things libertarians themselves generally claim we all have a right to – life, liberty, and property.

But this amounts to a contradiction. By definition, no one can have a right to deprive others of those things they have a right to.

It follows that there must be a flaw in the libertarian understanding of the right to property – and indeed there is. Wherein lies this flaw? To answer this we need to take a closer look at what the ‘right to property’ really means.

The Libertarian Error ? Political Animal Magazine
Its a straight up argument for Communism
guy39 is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 01:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,581
The OP goes straight to where they always go, take away person A's money and give it to person B.
Quigley is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 02:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Its a straight up argument for Communism
So Locke was a communist?
skews13 is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
The OP goes straight to where they always go, take away person A's money and give it to person B.

So the founders original intent of life, liberty, and property is flawed, and only a few privileged are entitled to those in alienable rights?
skews13 is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
So Locke was a communist?
Was ,or was not your article specifically pointing out what he thought Locke's "error" was?
Thanks from guy39
Quigley is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 02:22 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
So the founders original intent of life, liberty, and property is flawed, and only a few privileged are entitled to those in alienable rights?
Tell me, did they or did they frame the "right" with the words "The right to Pursue happiness (property)?

Last edited by Quigley; October 5th, 2017 at 02:25 PM.
Quigley is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 02:23 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Was ,or was not your article specifically pointing out what he thought Locke's "error" was?
So there are no inalienable rights for everyone, only a privileged few, and plutocracy, and tyranny is the acceptable choice?
skews13 is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 02:25 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
So there are no inalienable rights for everyone, only a privileged few, and plutocracy, and tyranny is the acceptable choice?
Deflection never works on me. Answer the question.
Thanks from Sabcat
Quigley is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
error, libertarian, locke, natural, property



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy birthday, Locke imaginethat Philosophy 2 August 30th, 2012 12:42 PM
Joe Wilson: The End Of An Error alias Political Talk 0 September 7th, 2006 10:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.