Re: POLITICS Discrimination and Property Rights (was ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR)

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > I may have accidentally said or implied that, but I should have said

> > something more like, it is one's property insofar as and in proportion

> > to the extent that one can choose how to dispose of it.

> And how one actually uses it while it is yours isn't part of this equation

> at all?!

Yes. Under the libertarian framework, any use of the bat to

physically intrude on someone else's person or property justifies a)

the use of force for self-defense by the victim while the violation is

being committed and the use of force by the collective (e.g. the

state) the punish the violation and remunerate the victim. In both a)

and , justifiable confiscation or destruction of the bat might

occur.

Physical intrusion does not necessarily mean harm to the person or

visible damage. Banging the bat against some object repeatedly might

generate noise pollution, for example, which could violate other

people's property under certain circumstances.

> > But, when you

> > start setting arbitrary rules about what can and cannot be done, the

> > right to dispose with it essentially becomes a privilege granted by

> > the state, rather than an inherent right of the person, which is how

> > the libertarian views it.

> These rules aren't arbitrary. This is my point. There is the inherent right

> of a person not to be discriminated against because of race, sexual

> preference, sex, religion, etc, and there is the right to dispose of one's

> property.

I should say here that I think one of the weaknesses of the

libertarian argument from an ethical standpoint is that there does not

seem to be any ultimate moral authority on which the right to person

and property is based. Your argument has the same weakness, it would

seem, because you are arbitrarily declaring this right and then

calling it " inherent. "

That said it seems to me that control over one's own person has to be

the most fundamental right of any, and control over one's property

directly flows from it, in that one's property is that which was

previously unowned and with which one " mixes his labor. "

The " right " to be treated fairly or not discriminated against is

really the right over the actions of others. And if you apply it

consistently it really gets absurd. Should not someone have a right

to offer a scholarship to African American college applicants that is

not open to whites? Should not a religious institution have the right

to establish a nursing home that is only open to adherents of that

religion? Should not a school have the right to require its

professorships or even its students to be filled by people adhereing

to a specific religion or set of religions? Should not a private

institution have the right to institute an affirmative action program,

if it feels that racial diversity is important to its operation?

If there is no right to discriminate on race, how could there possibly

be affirmative action, which you recently said you support?

> YOU are choosing which has priority for you. I don't care what

> 'the libertarian' says. I'm talking to you. This is YOUR priority. And I am

> comfortable with calling that bigoted.

Well no, it isn't really an issue I've made up my mind about, which

I've stated. However, I have made up my mind that it isn't bigoted,

and the issue I was discussing was whether someone *else* is a bigot,

which was an accusation that was levied.

> You say, I don't consider your right

> as a black person to buy this home as important as this racist pig's right

> not to sell it to you because you're black. You're not racist in the

> aggressive sense of the person selling his home, but there is something

> deeply ethically flawed in your position.

[snip]

Who owns the home, the black person or the racist pig? Does the

racist pig have no right to hang swastikas on the inside of his home

while he is living there? We allow racist pigs to demonstrate in the

public streets, so how on earth can they not have the right to be

racist pigs with their own property?

Look -- I think that racism and racial segregation are completely

vile. I don't think there is anything natural about them at all, or

excusable on the basis of history, etc. And the basic right to

property was denied the former slaves when they were freed, which was

almost as vile an injustice as slavery itself was.

That said, while there is institutional racism, racism itself is not

institutional. It's something that proceeds from a diseased heart.

How do you root it out? I'm not sure, but certainly you can't

legislate it out, and sometimes forced integration makes racism

*worse.*

Now, I don't really care that much about the racist pig's right to be

racist with his property, because I'm not really a believer in the

inherent right to person and property. I believe that at most we are

steward's of God's earth, not owners of it per se, and it is quite

evident, I think from someone from my spiritual background, that God

considers racism and lack of care for the poor to be among the most

hateful wickedness on the earth.

I am not so happy about property rights being seen as stewardship of

the state's property, however, so I'm inclined to have a certain

degree of sympathy with the libertarian position. But, I have such

little sympathy for the racist that I would never bother defending his

right, but at the same time I see the legitimacy from the property

rights perspective that she should have that right. So my point is

that, one can quite easily believe in the right to discrimination

without onself being a racist.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/28/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> >

>>>> >>> I may have accidentally said or implied that, but I should have said

>>>> >>> something more like, it is one's property insofar as and in proportion

>>>> >>> to the extent that one can choose how to dispose of it.

>> >

>>> >> And how one actually uses it while it is yours isn't part of this

>>> equation

>>> >> at all?!

>> >

>> > Yes. Under the libertarian framework, any use of the bat to

>> > physically intrude on someone else's person or property justifies a)

>> > the use of force for self-defense by the victim while the violation is

>> > being committed and the use of force by the collective (e.g. the

>> > state) the punish the violation and remunerate the victim. In both a)

>> > and , justifiable confiscation or destruction of the bat might

>> > occur.

>> >

>> > Physical intrusion does not necessarily mean harm to the person or

>> > visible damage. Banging the bat against some object repeatedly might

>> > generate noise pollution, for example, which could violate other

>> > people's property under certain circumstances.

>> >

>

> huh? I wasn¹t talking about the bat. You¹re saying that, for instance, a home

> is only yours to the extent that you can ³choose how to dispose of it². I¹m

> pointing out the absurdity that apparently, then, how one actually uses it

> before one disposes of it is seemingly irrelevant. It would seem to me that

> choosing whom to sell it to is only the primary criterion of the Œdegree of

> ownership¹ in a rather warped view ­ for reasons I¹ve already stated, and

> because, once you dispose of it, it¹s obviously no longer yours.

>

>>>> >>> But, when you

>>>> >>> start setting arbitrary rules about what can and cannot be done, the

>>>> >>> right to dispose with it essentially becomes a privilege granted by

>>>> >>> the state, rather than an inherent right of the person, which is how

>>>> >>> the libertarian views it.

>> >

>>> >> These rules aren't arbitrary. This is my point. There is the inherent

>>> right

>>> >> of a person not to be discriminated against because of race, sexual

>>> >> preference, sex, religion, etc, and there is the right to dispose of

>>> one's

>>> >> property.

>> >

>> > I should say here that I think one of the weaknesses of the

>> > libertarian argument from an ethical standpoint is that there does not

>> > seem to be any ultimate moral authority on which the right to person

>> > and property is based. Your argument has the same weakness, it would

>> > seem, because you are arbitrarily declaring this right and then

>> > calling it " inherent. "

>

> Oh, give me a break, Chris. All ethical arguments ultimately come down issues

> like this ­ you want to call these presuppositions Œarbitrary¹ - perhaps you

> actually operate that way. I find it interesting that on the one hand you

> spout some pretty fundamentalist Christian rhetoric at times, and then on the

> other hand you imply that the rights of people to discriminate (in the bad

> sense) should be prioritized over the rights of people to be treated fairly

> and without discrimination, and that my argument otherwise is Œarbitrary¹. In

> a sense that¹s correct ­ we are CHOOSING ­ and that¹s how we are judged

> ethically.

>

>> >

>> > That said it seems to me that control over one's own person has to be

>> > the most fundamental right of any, and control over one's property

>> > directly flows from it, in that one's property is that which was

>> > previously unowned and with which one " mixes his labor. "

>

> Are you really spouting this gibberish? Of course, Œcontrol over one¹s own

> person¹ is fundamental... Many things ³flow² from this, but as you stated in

> the case of violence, when these start conflicting with other FUNDAMENTAL

> rights is when we start placing limits on them. One big problem is when you

> use warped reasoning like yours above to conclude that it¹s ok to deprive

> others of rights, because of this logic, a logic which would certainly

> legitimize rampant discrimination in some communities, as existed in a much

> grander scale in this country before federal legislation was passed.

>

>> >

>> > The " right " to be treated fairly or not discriminated against is

>> > really the right over the actions of others. And if you apply it

>> > consistently it really gets absurd.

>

> This is really hilarious. Of course, sometimes our rights is really the ³right

> over the actions of others¹. And apparently libertarians are ok with that in

> certain instances ­ that of violence, for instance. Unfortunately, human

> society is rather complex, and of course, if you simply start out with one all

> encompassing simplistic principle, without considering anything else, you run

> into some problems. If I have basic precept A, and basic precept B, C, D, and

> so on, and take each one¹s logical implications without consideration of the

> others, we get contradictions.

>

>> > Should not someone have a right

>> > to offer a scholarship to African American college applicants that is

>> > not open to whites?

>

> Yes. But I think that we can differentiate between programs that are

> established to bring equality to those who have been historically denied it,

> and those that are established to deny equality to those who have been

> historically denied it. Again ­ it comes down to a more ŒChristian¹ view of

> the world vs one that is based on acquisition and greed in the guise of

> Œfreedom¹.

>

>> >Should not a religious institution have the right

>> > to establish a nursing home that is only open to adherents of that

>> > religion?

>

> At some point, these have to be looked at on a case by case basis. I don¹t

> think that this discussion should devolve to an argument about every such

> subtle case. I¹m not sure about this one ­ I¹d have to think about it.

> Surely, if it were the only nursing home in the area, I¹d say that maybe they

> should be open to everyone. On the other hand, I think that our society should

> provide free medical care, and care for the elderly...

>

>> > Should not a school have the right to require its

>> > professorships or even its students to be filled by people adhereing

>> > to a specific religion or set of religions?

>

> Again ­ an interesting discussion in its own right, but surely even you can

> differentiate between racist discrimination, and discrimination of this kind.

>

>> > Should not a private

>> > institution have the right to institute an affirmative action program,

>> > if it feels that racial diversity is important to its operation?

>> >

>> > If there is no right to discriminate on race, how could there possibly

>> > be affirmative action, which you recently said you support?

>

> ­ you¹re freely changing the meanings of words to bolster your

> Œargument¹ that there is absurdity here. I don¹t know exactly what my words

> were, but certainly, in the sense that you are using it here, I didn¹t and

> never would have stated that there is ³no right to discriminate on race².

> There is a difference in the way that discriminate is used when we say that

> someone is Œguilty¹ of discrimination against a group, and the very basic

> sense of the word in which we are just choosing between options based on

> various criteria.

>

> I see no problem here.

>

> ......

>

>> >

>>> >> You say, I don't consider your right

>>> >> as a black person to buy this home as important as this racist pig's

>>> right

>>> >> not to sell it to you because you're black. You're not racist in the

>>> >> aggressive sense of the person selling his home, but there is something

>>> >> deeply ethically flawed in your position.

>> >

>> > [snip]

>> >

>> > Who owns the home, the black person or the racist pig? Does the

>> > racist pig have no right to hang swastikas on the inside of his home

>> > while he is living there? We allow racist pigs to demonstrate in the

>> > public streets, so how on earth can they not have the right to be

>> > racist pigs with their own property?

>

> You cannot differentiate between hanging a swastika on the inside of your

> home, for instance, and say, erecting a huge lighted one on your front lawn?

> Even if you think that they should both be allowed ­ you really cannot see any

> possible difference between them? Or for instance, hanging a huge sign on your

> front lawn, ³all homosexuals should be killed².

>

> Of course, when you try to legislate stuff like this, you run into difficult

> issues about where to draw the line between property rights, free speech, and

> the rights of others. That does not mean that we cannot differentiate between

> cases, and try to work out the best laws based on our prioritization of basic

> ethical principles that can at times seemingly conflict with one another.

>

> Of course, the Œracist pig¹ owns the home. He lives in it....however, the

> greater the degree that this ownership detracts from other people¹s rights ­

> one of them, for instance, the right not to be intimidated by others, another

> the right to purchase a home in a community without being discriminated

> against because of race or sexual preference, the more, as in the case of

> violence discussed earlier, his ownership conflicts with other basic rights ­

> and it is perfectly ok then to circumscribe the right to ownership in these

> cases.

>

>> >

>> > Look -- I think that racism and racial segregation are completely

>> > vile. I don't think there is anything natural about them at all, or

>> > excusable on the basis of history, etc. And the basic right to

>> > property was denied the former slaves when they were freed, which was

>> > almost as vile an injustice as slavery itself was.

>> >

>> > That said, while there is institutional racism, racism itself is not

>> > institutional. It's something that proceeds from a diseased heart.

>> > How do you root it out? I'm not sure, but certainly you can't

>> > legislate it out, and sometimes forced integration makes racism

>> > *worse.*

>

> Certainly you cannot legislate people¹s feelings...but what you can try to do

> is mitigate the impact of these ³vile² feelings on others. Women can now vote,

> as can blacks. It is not legal now to blatantly discriminate for reasons of

> race or sex. These are good things. Whether affirmative action has been

> applied justly in all cases, or even corruptly in some, is one issue ­ but

> whether it helped bring more blacks into various segments of society where

> they had been excluded I don¹t think is debatable. There are some areas which

> have worked in some cases and not others ­ integration for one. But again ­

> because some programs were not implemented wisely doesn¹t mean that the

> overall tactic of legislating where there are great injustices in society is

> wrong.

>

>> >

>> > Now, I don't really care that much about the racist pig's right to be

>> > racist with his property, because I'm not really a believer in the

>> > inherent right to person and property. I believe that at most we are

>> > steward's of God's earth, not owners of it per se, and it is quite

>> > evident, I think from someone from my spiritual background, that God

>> > considers racism and lack of care for the poor to be among the most

>> > hateful wickedness on the earth.

>

> I won¹t do the God thing, but I think that our views are equivalent here.

>

>> >

>> > I am not so happy about property rights being seen as stewardship of

>> > the state's property, however, so I'm inclined to have a certain

>> > degree of sympathy with the libertarian position. But, I have such

>> > little sympathy for the racist that I would never bother defending his

>> > right, but at the same time I see the legitimacy from the property

>> > rights perspective that she should have that right. So my point is

>> > that, one can quite easily believe in the right to discrimination

>> > without onself being a racist.

As I explained - Œracist¹ is a term that we apply to others based on certain

criteria. I think that often, people whom we describe as racist don¹t

actually form racist thought explicitly...I am comfortable with describing

the defense of the right of a community or a person to discriminate against

people because of their race, gender, sexual preference, relgion, etc, as a

bigoted position because it is acknowledged that these bigoted actions will

occur, that people will be adversely affected, and that it is permissible

because property rights are more important. But, certainly, this is

Œbigoted¹ in a very weak sense, and I don¹t feel very strongly about the

label itself in this case.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> The " right " to be treated fairly or not discriminated against is

> really the right over the actions of others. And if you apply it

> consistently it really gets absurd.

But so does the right to property.

Is a unit of air my " property " while it's " on " my land? Does it

instantly shift to being someone else's property when it drifts over

my property line?

What about pollution? Should I be allowed to pollute the living ***t

out of " my " land as long as I'm careful to restrain the pollution from

spilling over onto someone else's land? What about the likelihood

(practically the certainty, really) that the pollution will in fact

eventually migrate no matter what measures I take?

Should I be allowed to buy up all the fresh water in an area and then

refuse to sell it to anyone, or only to blacks, or jews, or gays -- or

whites? What if I buy up all the fresh water on earth?

The pure libertarian position essentially disregards the tragedy of

the commons by pretending that all problems can be solved by

propertizing everything, so to speak, and relying on market valuation

of all things.

> Look -- I think that racism and racial segregation are completely

> vile. I don't think there is anything natural about them at all

You don't think there's anything natural about the development of in-

group and out-group morality and attitudes???

> That said, while there is institutional racism, racism itself is not

> institutional. It's something that proceeds from a diseased heart.

> How do you root it out? I'm not sure, but certainly you can't

> legislate it out, and sometimes forced integration makes racism

> *worse.*

I'm not even sure it's meaningful to call racism a disease of the

heart (or mind) inasmuch as I think it's an inevitable product of

evolution. Tribalism is built into us and it's going to express

itself one way or another. All we can do is try to foster conditions

under which it will be expressed less often and less intently and

perhaps even fade out someday as more and more people and races and

ethnic groups and what have you interbreed and as the world gets

smaller and people have more opportunity to consider the entire

species one giant in-group. I'm afraid, however, that this rosy

scenario is unlikely. Resources are getting more and more pinched,

and at least in the near future, travel will probably get a lot more

expensive and less common, so we're likely to have more and more

tensions and war and less in the way of global communal attitudes

unless maybe some external non-human threat were to arise.

-

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Is a unit of air my " property " while it's " on " my land? Does it

> instantly shift to being someone else's property when it drifts over

> my property line?

I think the Rothbardian position would be that the space above your

land becomes your property to the extent you affect it before another

has the claim to it, but it would be the space and not the molecules

that would be laid claim to. You can better determine if I'm right by

reading the following link, which I haven't finished. You might want

to skip the first 20 or 25 pages for efficiency:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

> What about pollution? Should I be allowed to pollute the living ***t

> out of " my " land as long as I'm careful to restrain the pollution from

> spilling over onto someone else's land? What about the likelihood

> (practically the certainty, really) that the pollution will in fact

> eventually migrate no matter what measures I take?

Well it wouldn't be just polluting your own property, then, would it?

> Should I be allowed to buy up all the fresh water in an area and then

> refuse to sell it to anyone, or only to blacks, or jews, or gays -- or

> whites? What if I buy up all the fresh water on earth?

Well I don't think that is a very realistic scenario. There are

examples of real monopolies in history, but nothing like that.

> The pure libertarian position essentially disregards the tragedy of

> the commons by pretending that all problems can be solved by

> propertizing everything, so to speak, and relying on market valuation

> of all things.

I don't think that " market valuation of all things " would really fit

in with the Austrian view, which I think is where Ron is coming

from. Soemone might use that phrase when talking about aggregate

phenomena, but really the " market " doesn't value anything; people do.

The idea that a everything can have some objective monetary value

attached to it and thus the market will mechanically allocate

everything is more rooted in the Chicago school I think. In the link

above, Rothbard is pretty critical of that idea. But I do think he

essentially believes in the propertization of everything.

It's worth noting that Ron is not running on a platform of

privatizing everything. I don't know if he even believes in that. He

said, for example, that he has no problem with public education, and

that all his children went to public school; he just wants the federal

government out of it. I'm not sure exactly what a Ron mayorship

might look like, but in his presidential campaign he's running more as

a constitutionalist, and his opposition to the federal government

being involved in education is on constitutional grounds -- although,

yes, obviously he agrees with the constitution on the matter, or he'd

be moving to ammend it.

> > Look -- I think that racism and racial segregation are completely

> > vile. I don't think there is anything natural about them at all

> You don't think there's anything natural about the development of in-

> group and out-group morality and attitudes???

Well, we could debate " natural " like we could debate " free. " I should

say, I don't think there is anything naturally determinative about

them. But you are right, in the sense you mean it it is natural.

But what I really disagree with is this idea that we can dismiss what

happened in our history based on our society being more primitive, and

we needing modern ideas to get rid of these old ideas that " nobody

ever questioned " at the time. Which is just absurd.

> > That said, while there is institutional racism, racism itself is not

> > institutional. It's something that proceeds from a diseased heart.

> > How do you root it out? I'm not sure, but certainly you can't

> > legislate it out, and sometimes forced integration makes racism

> > *worse.*

> I'm not even sure it's meaningful to call racism a disease of the

> heart (or mind) inasmuch as I think it's an inevitable product of

> evolution. Tribalism is built into us and it's going to express

> itself one way or another. [snip]

Right, I think we're working with radically different presuppositions here.

Chris