I wanted to split off from the previous discussion and discuss libertarian philosophy or at least the more extreme forms of libertarian philosophy such as minarchism. The biggest flaw in dogmatic libertarianism is revealed when we examine the notion of property rights and how they are justified. Lets first imagine that we have a world where we have no rules except that we cant directly harm each other. I decide to start building a house. After a few years of working on it, you decide that my house is pretty nice and that you want to live in it too, along with your twelve cousins. The house is now so crowded that I go outside and start sleeping in the dog kennel instead. Naturally, anyone else considering building a house decides that it really isnt worth the effort. Clearly, freedom cant be absolute and a system of property rights is required, but on what basis are these rights justified? Are these rights justified on the basis that property rights are necessary to allow people to pursue their own conception of the good? If so, then the system has to actually deliver this benefit, it cant just be that *some* people get to pursue their conception of the good. If the system of property allows people to monopolize resources to the point that people are starving on the street or working two jobs and not even making a living wage, then the system hasnt delivered and therefore cannot be justified. Are these rights justified because the alternative, no system of property, would be disastrous? If so doesnt that justify regulation when the free market fails, when monopolies engage in rent seeking behavior and when markets are filled with dangerous and dodgy products? Agree, disagree?
Posted on: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 03:19:54 +0000