Puritans, Property Rights and Problem Solving

[exploited]

So, let me sum up the arguments presented here.

1. I make an argument pointing out that demographic changes, environmental problems, economic realities and massive concentrations of wealth are probably going to lead to a new understanding of what property rights are, and how these property rights ought to be protected and enforced in modern society. Specifically, I argue that it is unacceptable (morally) and unsustainable (economically) for some people to have a net worth in the hundreds of millions and billions range, when the vast majority of the world makes under $2/day. I point out that this suggests an obvious and undeniable problem with the distribution of wealth, as there are a billion children who suffer from chronic malnourishment (starvation).

2. Various right-wing ideologues argue that wealth redistribution is morally wrong. I point out that wealth redistribution already exists, and that it has been a fundamentally positive force in the world. Boris demolishes the various ideological assumptions underpinning said ideologues arguments, and tries to reboot the discussion on solid footing. This attempt is ignored, repeatedly, and when it is finally acknowledged, dismissed as "fancy words." He continues to ask for somebody to engage him on this point. Finally, Mathurin steps up, citing a number of philosophers and economists. Boris points out that all of them actually disagree with Mathurin, and that none of them would argue that the distribution of wealth is initially just. Because it obviously isn't. There is a silence in the air.

3. Various right-wing ideologues argue that my proposal will stifle competition, destroy the incentive for people to work hard, etc. I point out that my proposal does not cap earning potential. I point out that making 40 times the amount of a "poor person" is incentive enough for the vast majority of people, using a simple argument: would you turn down a job that paid you 40 times more if it meant working twice as hard? How about three times of hard? In each case, the obvious answer is, of course not. I point out that competition is not at all effected by my proposal, in fact, it may increase competition by giving more people the means to start their own business. This is ignored, because obviously the only people in the world who have the capacity to make good businesses decisions have already done so, and only about 5% of the population is smart enough to handle the job. Obvious nonsense.

4. Mathurin argues that the law would be easy to get around. I point out that it would not, and that it allows for cost efficiencies and a more fair way of doing things. He argues that business owners would simply contract out all their work; I point out that doing so would be impossible, since it gives far, far too much importance to contractors, who are unlikely to agree to continue to make next to nothing while they do all the work. Instead, they will likely start businesses of their own. He denies this because it is obvious I know nothing about business. dontworrybehappy wonders if I've ever worked a day in my life. Everybody else laughs incredulously.

5. Mathurin attempts to argue that children in Africa are not starving because of poverty. Instead, corruption (i.e. people fighting over economic scraps), natural disasters (i.e. how many people starved to death in New Orleans?) and bad decisions (because a starving child has so many important decisions to make) are to blame. Once again, this gets demolished by Boris and myself, who insist that, contrary to the ideological beliefs presented here, the number one cause of starvation is poverty. No evidence is presented otherwise. Piles and piles of evidence are presented in favour of this hypothesis (i.e. being poor = being hungry).

6. Mathurin attempts to dismiss all emotional content as a fallacy, even though emotions are responsible for at least 80% of the decisions that people make, and probably more. Yossarian points out that you need empathy to understand poverty, and that people making a little bit more in a year is absolutely irrelevant. Mathurin denies, first, that people are starving because of income inequality. Then he denies that they are starving because they don't have money to import food. Finally, he says that they weren't starving last year, suggesting that a billion starving children materialized out of nowhere on October 24th, 2012.

7. Dontworrybehappy tries to solve the worlds problems by talking in platitudes. He is dismissed in favour of a poster who is actually trying to make real arguments, even if he is failing. He gets mad, and will likely post a picture of a crying baby in the next twenty-four hours.

When you look at it like this, I'd say the validity of my OP has pretty much been proven. I want to thank all of you for coming out, it has been one helluva landslide.

[Boris Johnson]

Just to be fair, its not that the philosophers disagree with it. Its that the 'arguments' being thrown around are out of context snippets of much larger arguments which though sounding nice, if pushed don't work outside of their context. Again its a shame, whatever impression people might get from what I've said I think Robert Nozick is one of the most underrateed philosophers of the last 100 years, he's unfairly not very highly regarded within the ivory towers, I for one think anarchy state and utopia throughout succeeds in beating seven shades of shit out of anarchism. Its part of my point about context, the real target of his book is establishing the minarchist state as a perferable solution to anarchy and getting a jab in the ribs of Rawls. Not to give all the answers to life the universe and everything.

So Unless one takes these out of context snipperets them articles of faith, not rational arguments. At which point certain philosophers and economists would start to get very upset indeed.

The problem really is, and this is a wall I ran into roughly 2010. Libertarianism, if you really want a front to back figured out political philosophical theory is a work in progress that basically got abandoned in the late 1970'ies. Self-ownership the core of the theory is an unworkable mess if you start playing out the string (my personal favorite is susan moller okins argument about women owning their children). Its best defender, Nozick (Hayek was a good economist, but so-so philosopher) got bored of it about that time and his last major work was trying to prove everything was objective for the better part of a decade. But critical things like that axiom in the prefance actually being fleshed out and defended. Just has not been done

And this is not stuff its easy to do. Not at all. So you can either go down the route of having a pick and mix patch work quilt of ideas sort of mash together, like whamming together Smith's invisible hand, Mill's liberty prinicple Nozicks wilt chamberlain bit and a bunch of Hayeks idle musings. But then you have the issue that come up again anyone who has actually studied the former 3 will hand your ass to you. but then things get a bit 'well the world is all brainwashed by collectivism' so f**k what they think. Which is why a lot of people fall into the Randtap, rand thought she had it all figured out. She was however as evidenced by her thinking tautologies were either interesting or something you could derive other conclusions from, absolutely shit at this sort of thing. And you get all this half baked nonsense that at the best of times to me sounds a bit like triumph of the will, social dawinism with 'oh but don't hurt others' tacked on.

So now you have 'libertarianism' as this sort of weird minor IRL political movement interwebs mass movement that just trades around badly xeroxed snippets of philosophy as it if were 'obvious truth'.

I guess the real moral of the story is, if you think you've got an absolutely axiomatic basis for your ethics, that covers all the bases and everyone who agree when you say things that even to you sound a bit odd in certain cases, like say the non-aggression principle.

Your doing it wrong.

[Mathurin]

[Mathurin]

[exploited]

[Mathurin]

[exploited]

[exploited]

[Boris Johnson]

[Boris Johnson]

edit- third pass, thats at least minimally wonky to the point where its not outright wrong.