| |
The Libertarian Blog of Stephan Kinsella
Mises Random Quote:
• BLOG ARCHIVES
• THE DAILY APOLOGY
• KINSELLALAW BLOG
August 31, 2005
The Essence of Libertarianism?:
Recently I shared with David Gordon my thought that libertarianism can be distilled to a two-word summary: "first possession" (or "finders keepers"). All competing theories believe in property rights; socialists, for example, believe the state should own the means of production. The difference between them and us is that we believe the only valid means of acquiring title to property is to appropriate it from the state of nature by being the first user or possessor, or by acquiring it ultimately from such a first possessor.
David pointed out that this principle covers homesteadable, alienable property, but does not cover rights in our bodies. As he said, "If you confine yourself to finders keepers, doesn't this leave me free to kill you, so long as I don't take your property?" Well, if we say that "first possession" or homesteading is how we acquire rights in our bodies too, I supppose "first possession" covers body-rights too. One is the first user of one's body, after all, as emphasized by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (pp. 8-14). But do we homestead our bodies in the same way we homestead external, unowned scarce resources? It's not as if, if I choose not to homestead my body, it remains unowned--as is the case for unowned scarce resources.
But David got me thinking about this, and I think I found another short phrase that also captures the essence of libertarianism, in a somewhat different way. The essence of libertarianism?: "BETTER TITLE" (see, e.g., La. Civ. Code, arts. 531, 532).
This is an expression used in law when two people dispute title to a piece of land. Neither party has to prove "absolute" ownership of the land, "good against the world"; only better title than the other. The "better title" favors the "first possession" rule for homesteadable property. As for rights in one's body, the person whose body it is has a better claim to control the body than others, because of the natural connection between a person and his body (and, yes, because one is the first user of one's body, as opposed to the latecomer). Further, if an aggressor does not acknowledge the victim's special claim to have primary control over "his own" body, then the aggressor has no cause to complain if aggression is used against his body. After all, the aggressor has no special claims to control his body, if the connection between him and his body is not sufficient to support such a claim. Therefore, any aggressor who makes such a claim has to admit the legitimacy of force against him in response to his aggression. This is all the victim needs to prove in order to establish that he has a right against aggression towards his own body. And this shows a person has "better title" to his own body than do others. (For more info on this type of reasoning about rights, see New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory.)
Update:
I originally posted this back in July 2002 but have updated it with additional info:
Later I will add some of my thoughts on difficulties of homesteading one's own body (body, baby ownership issues, etc.). 
August 25, 2005
A good quote from me:
from this Chronicles thread: I agree that most people do not want liberty; that is why we do not have it. IMO those who think we can "win" the battle for liberty are just deluding themselves. Why libertarians, who denounce altruism etc., feel as if it's some moral duty to go around wasting large parts of their life in some campaign for liberty is beyond me--it's altruistic; it's futile; it's a waste of time, since one is at most barely increasing the odds, that we will temporarily and slightly increase liberty, the puny benefit of which falls primarily on those who do not deserve it. I have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done (affecting Yul Brenner Pharao pose)
Coda:
In the wake of some emails, let me add a few clarifying commments. I am not saying that it is a waste of time to try to work for liberty. To the contrary. I am saying that one would have to view it as a waste of time, if one really believed the costs of fighting the battle must be justified by the gains achieved--because one must delude oneself into making the equation balance. I just reject the equation. I help fight for liberty because it is the right thing to do. If I strutted around like some libertarians who claim that in their devotion to the struggle for liberty they are "making a difference"--certainly "more of a difference" than people like me who don't write "influential books" or a daily op-ed column or give speeches to socialist legislators in Arabia--then if I were honest I would have to say, it's really not worth it. If the justification for spending time and effort and money etc. to fight for liberty is whether or not we are "winning," then the project is a failure, on those terms. As I noted above, the actions of most of us at most result in a slightly higher chance at barely, and temporarily, increasing liberty--or, more likely, slowing down the rate of increase in government growth--primarily for the benefit of the masses who at root are to blame for the problem in the first place. And honest analysis realizes this.
Freeing oneself from self-delusion is essential for self-honesty and integrity. It also frees one to take principled positions and to avoid making the dishonest and irritating mistake of judging the truth or value of a theory or view by its "strategical" significance.
I cannot count the number of times some irritating jerk libertarian says to me, in response to a theory or normative proposition, "but that is not going to persuade anyone." They immediately assume that everything is to be judged by strategy, rhetoric, persuasiveness. I see nothing wrong with using such standards when appropriate. For example if I am proposing a method or argument to persuade people, then it is relevant whether the proposed argument or technique is persuasive. But when I assert to a fellow libertarian that we have a right to such and such, or that there is no right to xyz, for such and such reasons--it is just a non sequitur, a category mistake--and usually smarmy disingenuity, IMO--to say BUT that is not "going to persuade people." Hey dumbass--I never said it was gonna persuade others. These type of libertarians are in my view basically moral skeptics, relativists, and/or utilitarians. They are incapable of discussing anything normative. Moral talk is simply not "useful." What good, after all, does it to do identify moral truths, if it does not persuade others?
By this logic, there are no rights violations; there is only power. After all, even if libertarian rights could be proved by the Word of God delivered in an engraved envelope--still, an aggressor could disregard it. "Telling" him that he is violating your rights will "do no good." Yes. So? And so? What is the point of this elementary school observation? This entire mindset is that of the self-proclaimed "pragmatist" who does not want to say there are no rights--after all, it might be "useful" if some people do believe in them--but he does not really believe in them. He, in engineer-like fashion, cares only about "practical" "results." And I have no problem with this. But I would prefer they be honest. If I say, "there should be no murder," don't say "that's not practical"; it's not "impractical"; it's a normative truth. To say the rule against murder is "impractical" is to fail to distinguish between ought and is.
Every 5-15 years you see some libertarians waxing about how we are winning the battle, or that we can win the battle, all we need to do is... As far back as the 1930s etc.... They have to delude themselves and engage in wishful thinking and rah-rah political rally self-delusion ("we can win! we can win the Presidency! This year we will get 100 million votes if we just get our message out there!!!"). They have to delude themselves because they have bought into the idea that the cost of the fight is a worthwhile "investment" in the struggle to "achieve" liberty. They must believe that worth it to fight for liberty, implying they think we have, or can, achieve suffiient "gains" to "outweigh" the "Costs". This is naive and wide-eyed gullibility, wishful thinking.
Me--I say, be a libertarian activist if you want (of whatever stripe: more academic, like some of us; a blogger; a writer; join a local discussion group; run for office; donate your time or money to something; help promote economic education and literacy; whatever). I am, myself, to a degree. It's okay to spend effort on a cause one is passionate about. I expend effort reading science fiction, and don't seek to justify it w/ some made-up phantom tangible gains. Fight for liberty for its own sake. If you fight for it based on the gains, you will soon give up.
August 8, 2005
50 coolest websites:
courtesy of Time Magazine. The web-based video games at orisinal are really cool.
August 5, 2005
Objectivists on the Space Program:
What can one say to this? Except, so typically Objectivist.
The Magnificent Seven Billion
by Ross Elliot
Oh, and how they floated there. Two hundred & twenty miles above the Earth in their spaceship.
We. Our guys. Us.
Shuttle Discovery performs a majestic back flip at 18,000 miles per hour and comes in to dock alongside the space station with nary a jolt. An orbital tango. Twinkling stars and twinkling toes. Fred Astaire in a spacesuit. Perfect.
The hatch opens and through they float. The Magnificent Seven. John Sturges, eat your heart out.
Can you imagine, a scant hundred years ago, in 1905, our ancestors even conjuring up such a scenario? No. Yet there it is. There we are.
The heroism, the adherence to objectivity, the breathtaking concentration of wealth and the focusing thereof: these things make it possible. They make it real.
Seven million pounds of thrust hurls them upward faster than a speeding bullet. Their journey is fraught with peril. It must be, for Man dares to break free of his home. We, who were once helpless babes, decipher and render nature's power to our own ends, and with supreme confidence in our own destiny, thrust starward.
And, while men on Earth play with their own DNA, Man above toys with the heavens. We burn the candle at both ends and oh! how brightly it burns.
There need never be an end to this. The market, the satisfaction of needs and wants, the mind-blowing accumulation and exploitation of capital, the dreaming, the searching and the attainment.
Everything is possible.
Man is capable and Man is good.
Just get out of his way.
|
|
