The Lockean synthesis

[MERIZoC]

The libertarian argument of "I own it" isn't legitimate because originally, everyone/nobody owned everything, so basically taxation is compensation for taking it, rather than unjustified theft.

I think.

Yes, correct again. That is the proviso, at least. The synthesis judges that, as exchanges and mediums of exchange are entitlements to private property, they hold the same value as private property, thus making their taxation nothing more than compensation. The same way you could own a house, never having seen it, known it, or been told of your ownership over it, the house would still be yours, and you would still have the duties in relation to that house.

Alright, I'm getting the hang of this philosophy stuff.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It hurts, but i am going to try to think like a libertarian.

The level of compensation is to be decided by the state itself, a body that has a corporate interest to perpetuate and expand its own powers and thus hike up compensation above a 'fair' level? The masses will also, surely, be prone to elect people who overvalue the compensation as more public services improve their relative, and, arguably, absolute material circumstances.

I don't think libertarians will be rushing to embrace this idea.

[Skeckoa]

There is a right to accumulate property, which is what makes turning common property into private property a blatant contravention of rights. The difference is subtle, but is similar to the one right to happiness/to pursue happiness.

But the right to accumulate property is not infringed either. The property that is currently owned can be traded for, and in some instances trading can be easier than old school homesteading. Even if all the land around you is owned (which I still believe is not a complete limitation since there is the moon, other planets, the sea), you can still acquire via trade. It is a different type of acquisition, but still a viable way of achieving such.

It hurts, but i am going to try to think like a libertarian.

The level of compensation is to be decided by the state itself, a body that has a corporate interest to perpetuate and expand its own powers and thus hike up compensation above a 'fair' level? The masses will also, surely, be prone to elect people who overvalue the compensation as more public services improve their relative, and, arguably, absolute material circumstances.

I don't think libertarians will be rushing to embrace this idea.

I'm still trying to get past the "what makes the state the legitimate representative for the people to acquire this compensation. Especially given that historically (and still today) most citizens subjects have no say in where the state spends that money, and it's not going to be going to them.

[Betoni]

How come you have no thought sacrificed for Rawles. Seems to me his veil of ignorance was as legitimate and justified starting point as was the state of nature.

I wonder, if we as a species ever get to colonize other planets/planetoids, do we just fuck everything up or do we realize every utopia we could dream of. After all, that would remove some of the natural limitations in these arguments.

[Sanctissima]

What I've never quite understood about Libertarian philosophy is (since it basically calls for the abolition or near-abolition of most government functions) who's supposed to replace the government as the responsible body over the State? Basically, what I'm asking is, if you create a near governmentless society, who's supposed to run everything?

[Betoni]

What I've never quite understood about Libertarian philosophy is (since it basically calls for the abolition or near-abolition of most government functions) who's supposed to replace the government as the responsible body over the State? Basically, what I'm asking is, if you create a near governmentless society, who's supposed to run everything?

You and everyone else. The time we realize timeless and effortless sharing of thought (basically becoming the geth in ability), we can achieve true democracy. Something that would also be true communism. The thing is, back in the day when Engels and Marx were busy thinking of these things you didn't have to get a message across in a 160-something letters for it to be 'instant'. You didn't have to be a twit.

[Skeckoa]

You and everyone else. The time we realize timeless and effortless sharing of thought (basically becoming the geth in ability), we can achieve true democracy. Something that would also be true communism. The thing is, back in the day when Engels and Marx were busy thinking of these things you didn't have to get a message across in a 160-something letters for it to be 'instant'. You didn't have to be a twit.

Implying that if people had political democracy, they would just go for communism.

No need to call people twats, it has almost nothing to do with the OP.

[Betoni]

You and everyone else. The time we realize timeless and effortless sharing of thought (basically becoming the geth in ability), we can achieve true democracy. Something that would also be true communism. The thing is, back in the day when Engels and Marx were busy thinking of these things you didn't have to get a message across in a 160-something letters for it to be 'instant'. You didn't have to be a twit.

Implying that if people had political democracy, they would just go for communism.

No need to call people twats, it has almost nothing to do with the OP.

That's how I understood Marx and Engels. Oh, If you notice, I didn't call anyone a twat. If I was making a social comment on anything, it was the phenomenon of instant self-gratification, which twitter very intentionally try to promote.

Actually, sorry for that. I was under the impression I was in the communism thread. So no, this doesn't belong here at all. Well it kind of does tie in with Rawls if you look at it in the right light, but still not for this topic. So, sorry about that.

ok, what the f is the bbcode for striketrough? Thanks Arkolon.

[Arkolon]

Implying that if people had political democracy, they would just go for communism.

No need to call people twats, it has almost nothing to do with the OP.

[s]That's how I understood Marx and Engels. Oh, If you notice, I didn't call anyone a twat. If I was making a social comment on anything, it was the phenomenon of instant self-gratification, which twitter very intentionally try to promote.[/s]

Actually, sorry for that. I was under the impression I was in the communism thread. So no, this doesn't belong here at all. Well it kind of does tie in with Rawls if you look at it in the right light, but still not for this topic. So, sorry about that.

ok, what the f is the bbcode for striketrough?

[strike]

[Conscentia]

Implying that if people had political democracy, they would just go for communism.

No need to call people twats, it has almost nothing to do with the OP.

[s]That's how I understood Marx and Engels. Oh, If you notice, I didn't call anyone a twat. If I was making a social comment on anything, it was the phenomenon of instant self-gratification, which twitter very intentionally try to promote.[/s]

Actually, sorry for that. I was under the impression I was in the communism thread. So no, this doesn't belong here at all. Well it kind of does tie in with Rawls if you look at it in the right light, but still not for this topic. So, sorry about that.

ok, what the f is the bbcode for striketrough?

There's a button for it above the box you type in to make a post.

[Arkolon]

It hurts, but i am going to try to think like a libertarian.

The level of compensation is to be decided by the state itself, a body that has a corporate interest to perpetuate and expand its own powers and thus hike up compensation above a 'fair' level? The masses will also, surely, be prone to elect people who overvalue the compensation as more public services improve their relative, and, arguably, absolute material circumstances.

I don't think libertarians will be rushing to embrace this idea.

In a practical sense, the state could just as much set incredibly harsh punishments for murder, rape, or theft, the same way it could set incredibly harsh punishments for owning private property. But these things are severely limited in the states of today, with constitutions and executive and legislative limitations. You make a good case within the realms of theory, but, for one reason or another, human psychology lead to it not happening this way. Your second point brings up Milton Friedman's argument against democracy, saying that voters aren't economists and are far from being 'rational' in their voting methods, so we will end up with poor governments. Although, again, his idea poses a threat to political stability in theory, it is well known how hard it is to get the economy to swallow a tax hike or a spending cut, making it unlikely that the state would unleash its own Reign of Terror every time a new leader gets into office.

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not libertarians flock to the idea or not. Since the synthesis adopts libertarian ethics, and is built in the effort to be a conclusion of these ethics, assuming the synthesis is correct means that the libertarians either acquiesce to it, rejecting anti-statism, or reject it, making them intellectually dishonest. That is, of course, omitting the existence of consequentialist libertarians and anarchists, who posit that libertarianism or anarchism is the best idea in practice, and not necessarily in theory.

[Betoni]

[s]That's how I understood Marx and Engels. Oh, If you notice, I didn't call anyone a twat. If I was making a social comment on anything, it was the phenomenon of instant self-gratification, which twitter very intentionally try to promote.[/s]

Actually, sorry for that. I was under the impression I was in the communism thread. So no, this doesn't belong here at all. Well it kind of does tie in with Rawls if you look at it in the right light, but still not for this topic. So, sorry about that.

ok, what the f is the bbcode for striketrough?

There's a button for it above the box you type in to make a post.

Yeah, failed to notice that as in every word processor around here the button is next to [b],[i] and [u]. Anyway, it got fixed thanks to Arkolon and is off-topic so.. I'd rather type the code in myself if possible anyways.

[Arkolon]

There is a right to accumulate property, which is what makes turning common property into private property a blatant contravention of rights. The difference is subtle, but is similar to the one right to happiness/to pursue happiness.

But the right to accumulate property is not infringed either. The property that is currently owned can be traded for, and in some instances trading can be easier than old school homesteading. Even if all the land around you is owned (which I still believe is not a complete limitation since there is the moon, other planets, the sea), you can still acquire via trade. It is a different type of acquisition, but still a viable way of achieving such.

The right to accumulate property is indeed infringed. Imagine a scenario with 100 units of unowned land. If I appropriate 1 unit of land, there are now 99 units of unowned land, and you are not allowed to take my land. This means you now have the right to accumulate one unit of land fewer, which is a very obvious diminishment of your right to accumulate property. As a rule, compensation must always be paid in order to rectify injustices, and all injustices are diminishments of rights or of well-being.

[Arkolon]

How come you have no thought sacrificed for Rawles.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is very much a criticism of Rawls and his works. As a person who associates more with Nozick and his philosophy than I do with Rawls and his, I think it is very fitting that I left out the totality of Rawls' works.

[Betoni]

How come you have no thought sacrificed for Rawles.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is very much a criticism of Rawls and his works. As a person who associates more with Nozick and his philosophy than I do with Rawls and his, I think it is very fitting that I left out the totality of Rawls' works.

Yeah, I took that from the OP. The thing is though, that Rawls and Nozick are kind of the opposites of the spectrum. So, a real synthesis would be from both of them. I have really nothing more to add. I agree with your 'synthesis', but I do not see it as a real synthesis, it is more of an amalgamation of the same ideas.

[Arkolon]

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is very much a criticism of Rawls and his works. As a person who associates more with Nozick and his philosophy than I do with Rawls and his, I think it is very fitting that I left out the totality of Rawls' works.

Yeah, I took that from the OP. The thing is though, that Rawls and Nozick are kind of the opposites of the spectrum. So, a real synthesis would be from both of them. I have really nothing more to add. I agree with your 'synthesis', but I do not see it as a real synthesis, it is more of an amalgamation of the same ideas.

Oh, yes, that's quite the point. The synthesis takes ideas from one part of Nozick's philosophy, attaches it to another part of the same philosophy, sprinkles on some extra bits from a third part of the philosophy, and then it is ready to be served. The synthesis doesn't take from anyone but Nozick, really, who, again, took largely from Locke and who, again, influenced the whole of propertarian ethics. I chose the name because I saw it fitting to the theme: if you draw a diagram of the entitlement theory, the Lockean proviso is to the principle of justice in acquisition what the Lockean synthesis is to the principle of justice in transfer. I was going for a Lockean something, if you see what I mean.

[Betoni]

Yeah, I took that from the OP. The thing is though, that Rawls and Nozick are kind of the opposites of the spectrum. So, a real synthesis would be from both of them. I have really nothing more to add. I agree with your 'synthesis', but I do not see it as a real synthesis, it is more of an amalgamation of the same ideas.

Oh, yes, that's quite the point. The synthesis takes ideas from one part of Nozick's philosophy, attaches it to another part of the same philosophy, sprinkles on some extra bits from a third part of the philosophy, and then it is ready to be served. The synthesis doesn't take from anyone but Nozick, really, who, again, took largely from Locke and who, again, influenced the whole of propertarian ethics. I chose the name because I saw it fitting to the theme: if you draw a diagram of the entitlement theory, the Lockean proviso is to the principle of justice in acquisition what the Lockean synthesis is to the principle of justice in transfer. I was going for a Lockean something, if you see what I mean.

Ah, I quite misunderstood then. Might be my bad for focusing on the synthesis part. I'd dehydrate you in the rectum now, or what ever the spooky CIA kids say, but I'm more of a Rawls guy so I'll just rehydrate your ass.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It hurts, but i am going to try to think like a libertarian.

The level of compensation is to be decided by the state itself, a body that has a corporate interest to perpetuate and expand its own powers and thus hike up compensation above a 'fair' level? The masses will also, surely, be prone to elect people who overvalue the compensation as more public services improve their relative, and, arguably, absolute material circumstances.

I don't think libertarians will be rushing to embrace this idea.

In a practical sense, the state could just as much set incredibly harsh punishments for murder, rape, or theft, the same way it could set incredibly harsh punishments for owning private property. But these things are severely limited in the states of today, with constitutions and executive and legislative limitations. You make a good case within the realms of theory, but, for one reason or another, human psychology lead to it not happening this way. Your second point brings up Milton Friedman's argument against democracy, saying that voters aren't economists and are far from being 'rational' in their voting methods, so we will end up with poor governments. Although, again, his idea poses a threat to political stability in theory, it is well known how hard it is to get the economy to swallow a tax hike or a spending cut, making it unlikely that the state would unleash its own Reign of Terror every time a new leader gets into office.

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not libertarians flock to the idea or not. Since the synthesis adopts libertarian ethics, and is built in the effort to be a conclusion of these ethics, assuming the synthesis is correct means that the libertarians either acquiesce to it, rejecting anti-statism, or reject it, making them intellectually dishonest. That is, of course, omitting the existence of consequentialist libertarians and anarchists, who posit that libertarianism or anarchism is the best idea in practice, and not necessarily in theory.

It's not really a matter of "is it correct or not?", though. It's widely acknowledged that politics is an inherently value-laden process. Libertarians may well respond that the problems outlined above lead modern states to set the requirements on the wealthy too high, and that the state-type posited here would be too restrictive on liberty. Don't get me wrong here. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this, and there's enough to it that it can't be totally unpicked easily - which is usually a good sign. But this doesn't decisively "refute" libertarianism and mandate that every libertarian should necessarily come over to your side or be thought dishonest.

[Maqo]

Which state doesn't claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction? Can you give an example of why the state wouldn't own it all?

Pretty much every single modern state with a mixed economy doesn't claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction. If they did, they wouldn't legally recognise private property, which would eliminate the possibility of us being in a capitalist system. Seeing as private property is recognised, and private property has private individual owners, the state does not own it. It is not theirs. If all private property was public property, that would be the literal definition of socialism.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.
Most states are perfectly happy with being the owners of land, and letting citizens do what they will on that land, including the accumulation of private property. They just write a legal document saying that citizens have the right to private property and voilà! no contradiction between government owning the land and citizens owning property. You have to remember that even though you might have 'purchased' some land legally, this is (currently) done in the form of purchasing certain rights to use that land in particular ways: you don't actually 'own' the land in the same way that you own your car.
As a test to this theory: try to find an unoccupied area of land, and start a mining operation there. Make sure you tell the government what you're doing. You'll find they respond very quickly to tell you not to remove their minerals from the ground.

Alternatively, through ownership of the land the state does effectively have the right to turn their state into literal socialism, but they are abstaining from exercising that right (perhaps by explicitly giving it up in their constitution).

Yeah, I wrote this straight after having woken up, so I may have been unclear without noticing it.

Here I meant to get across that you owe the state compensation because you are in possession of private property. The state offers many services, mainly protection and regulation at its core, and it also deals with justice. You paying compensation as a rectification of your injustices, the diminishment of rights, is in regards to the state's role in justice. Thus, the role of the state is to: enforce contracts, protect individuals, recognise the existence of private property, and to rectify injustices. Asking "why do you have the authority to tax me?", one core function of the state, is similar to asking "why do you have the authority to protect me?", another, similar, core function of the state.

Don't we then arrive back at the classic anarchist argument: "I didn't want you to provide me with services, so why should I pay you? If I stop paying you, will you please stop providing?"

If a person in the USA acquires some property which was once common, then they are denying it to people in Russia just as surely as they are denying it to people down the road, or on the other side of the country. Shouldn't the Russian be compensated as well?

I'm not extremely well-versed in international law or international relations, but, similar to my first point, this question is like asking why the Russian government can't arrest a man in the United States. Different state, different jurisdiction, difference private defense agency, I don't know. I admit I'm a little embarrassed I can't answer this question as well as I can others.

I don't think you need to be familiar with international law: in fact, if you're trying to derive this from first principles, you don't need it at all.
It seems that (under your system) the state arrives at its legitimacy to arrest/defend its citizens based upon territory and the mutual consent of the citizens. But the acquisition of property is an act that theoretically harms everyone in the world regardless of where they are or whether they consent.


I'm also having difficulty with the conclusion that the state can determine absolutely any level of compensation they want to. This would seem to lead to the idea that any infringement of rights is punishable by any level of force, leading to (in theory) penalties in excess of the value of property acquired (you own assets worth $100? you owe $200 in taxes). Surely the compensation should be proportionate to the level of rights diminished?

[Distruzio]

At the risk of inciting the MODRAGE I must tag this thread for consideration and response.

Former libertarian reporting.

[Arkolon]

Oh, yes, that's quite the point. The synthesis takes ideas from one part of Nozick's philosophy, attaches it to another part of the same philosophy, sprinkles on some extra bits from a third part of the philosophy, and then it is ready to be served. The synthesis doesn't take from anyone but Nozick, really, who, again, took largely from Locke and who, again, influenced the whole of propertarian ethics. I chose the name because I saw it fitting to the theme: if you draw a diagram of the entitlement theory, the Lockean proviso is to the principle of justice in acquisition what the Lockean synthesis is to the principle of justice in transfer. I was going for a Lockean something, if you see what I mean.

Ah, I quite misunderstood then. Might be my bad for focusing on the synthesis part. I'd dehydrate you in the rectum now, or what ever the spooky CIA kids say, but I'm more of a Rawls guy so I'll just rehydrate your ass.

Err, thanks, I guess?

[Arkolon]

In a practical sense, the state could just as much set incredibly harsh punishments for murder, rape, or theft, the same way it could set incredibly harsh punishments for owning private property. But these things are severely limited in the states of today, with constitutions and executive and legislative limitations. You make a good case within the realms of theory, but, for one reason or another, human psychology lead to it not happening this way. Your second point brings up Milton Friedman's argument against democracy, saying that voters aren't economists and are far from being 'rational' in their voting methods, so we will end up with poor governments. Although, again, his idea poses a threat to political stability in theory, it is well known how hard it is to get the economy to swallow a tax hike or a spending cut, making it unlikely that the state would unleash its own Reign of Terror every time a new leader gets into office.

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not libertarians flock to the idea or not. Since the synthesis adopts libertarian ethics, and is built in the effort to be a conclusion of these ethics, assuming the synthesis is correct means that the libertarians either acquiesce to it, rejecting anti-statism, or reject it, making them intellectually dishonest. That is, of course, omitting the existence of consequentialist libertarians and anarchists, who posit that libertarianism or anarchism is the best idea in practice, and not necessarily in theory.

It's not really a matter of "is it correct or not?", though. It's widely acknowledged that politics is an inherently value-laden process. Libertarians may well respond that the problems outlined above lead modern states to set the requirements on the wealthy too high, and that the state-type posited here would be too restrictive on liberty. Don't get me wrong here. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this, and there's enough to it that it can't be totally unpicked easily - which is usually a good sign. But this doesn't decisively "refute" libertarianism and mandate that every libertarian should necessarily come over to your side or be thought dishonest.

Yes, I admitted that these sorts of people would not necessarily have to change their views, as they are disagreeing with the consequences of libertarianism or that set of ethics, so they could very easily change to something else if they wanted to. Libertarians that believe that libertarianism is best in practice will still have to be debated, but none can once more pretend that taxation is theft, despite appearing that way. Debate privatising social security or interest rates with libertarians all you want, as those sorts of people would still exist, but any libertarian that rested on a set of ethics or axioms that made them posit that the NAP was correct or that taxation is theft could no longer say that the modern state is unjustified. For these types of people, who make up roughly a half of all libertarians (I'm making a really, really rough guess here), it very much is a matter of "is it correct or not?".

[Arkolon]

Pretty much every single modern state with a mixed economy doesn't claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction. If they did, they wouldn't legally recognise private property, which would eliminate the possibility of us being in a capitalist system. Seeing as private property is recognised, and private property has private individual owners, the state does not own it. It is not theirs. If all private property was public property, that would be the literal definition of socialism.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.

Private property needs to have private owners. If the state owns property, it is public property. The state can't own private property without it being public property. Therefore, it is illogical to claim that the state owns all private property, just because, without refuting the existence and/or possibility of private property. Seeing as we do have private property which the state does not own, I think it's safe to say that the state does not own all property.

Most states are perfectly happy with being the owners of land, and letting citizens do what they will on that land, including the accumulation of private property. They just write a legal document saying that citizens have the right to private property and voilà! no contradiction between government owning the land and citizens owning property.

The underlined is a contravention of the entitlement theory of property.

You have to remember that even though you might have 'purchased' some land legally, this is (currently) done in the form of purchasing certain rights to use that land in particular ways: you don't actually 'own' the land in the same way that you own your car.

Err, I'm confused. Ownership is defined as having certain rights to something, so I don't see why you're creating an unnecessary, strange distinction between owning your car, ie having exclusive rights to it, and owning land, ie having exclusive rights to it.

As a test to this theory: try to find an unoccupied area of land, and start a mining operation there. Make sure you tell the government what you're doing. You'll find they respond very quickly to tell you not to remove their minerals from the ground.

That isn't a valid test in theory. Because the state is not a timeless mechanism, and there has been a time before statism, we have to assume all theoretical arguments are in the state of nature. My question to you has to be "why?". Why does the state own this land? Who gave it to it? How did it acquire it? And if it contravenes the entitlement theory of property ("what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours"), then how is it really justified?

Alternatively, through ownership of the land the state does effectively have the right to turn their state into literal socialism, but they are abstaining from exercising that right (perhaps by explicitly giving it up in their constitution).

No, this is exactly why libertarians have an issue with socialism and communism: because the state takes private property it was never entitled to.

Yeah, I wrote this straight after having woken up, so I may have been unclear without noticing it.

Here I meant to get across that you owe the state compensation because you are in possession of private property. The state offers many services, mainly protection and regulation at its core, and it also deals with justice. You paying compensation as a rectification of your injustices, the diminishment of rights, is in regards to the state's role in justice. Thus, the role of the state is to: enforce contracts, protect individuals, recognise the existence of private property, and to rectify injustices. Asking "why do you have the authority to tax me?", one core function of the state, is similar to asking "why do you have the authority to protect me?", another, similar, core function of the state.

Don't we then arrive back at the classic anarchist argument: "I didn't want you to provide me with services, so why should I pay you? If I stop paying you, will you please stop providing?"

If you kill someone, you can't use this argument, because you did initiate force. Compensation is just part of the justice system, similar to regulating other crimes.

I'm not extremely well-versed in international law or international relations, but, similar to my first point, this question is like asking why the Russian government can't arrest a man in the United States. Different state, different jurisdiction, difference private defense agency, I don't know. I admit I'm a little embarrassed I can't answer this question as well as I can others.

I don't think you need to be familiar with international law: in fact, if you're trying to derive this from first principles, you don't need it at all.
It seems that (under your system) the state arrives at its legitimacy to arrest/defend its citizens based upon territory and the mutual consent of the citizens. But the acquisition of property is an act that theoretically harms everyone in the world regardless of where they are or whether they consent.

If a Russian man is punished by the American government for killing people, is this more unjust or less just than if the same Russian man were to be punished by the American government? So long as you are taxed, or so long as you compensate for your acquisition of private property, it is just.

I'm also having difficulty with the conclusion that the state can determine absolutely any level of compensation they want to. This would seem to lead to the idea that any infringement of rights is punishable by any level of force, leading to (in theory) penalties in excess of the value of property acquired (you own assets worth $100? you owe $200 in taxes).

Sure, in theory. I'd like to see any government set a 200% income tax rate before I'll take this seriously.

Surely the compensation should be proportionate to the level of rights diminished?

That's what the state is there to decide. Asking for too much compensation is a contravention of the entitlement theory of property-- taking property that isn't yours, and that isn't under the form of compensation.