tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post112191098377858512..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Left-libertarianism again.Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-38024113290200568072012-06-09T12:53:46.537-04:002012-06-09T12:53:46.537-04:00For someone own him/herself he/she must own a spac...For someone own him/herself he/she must own a space of land at the birth.Only in this way he/she can chose own destiny. Libertarians like Buffet already were born with lands that should belong to others. Then, they can own themselves since that others don't. That's the problem.The system is like a competition, a marathon. Who runs more fast should earn. But, in the Buffet world, some competitors begins ahead.The right division of land is the key.O Cabrito Politicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04974880234487680749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1122386123965791262005-07-26T09:55:00.000-04:002005-07-26T09:55:00.000-04:00"...if anything, I would have a moral duty to care..."...if anything, I would have a moral duty to care for this newly created agent, who has an intrinsic moral worth."<BR/><BR/>Special "creator duties" might exist as well as the "creator rights" I've tried to describe. Creator duties might explain why we have duties to our offspring which we don't have to other people's offspring. What really interests me, in the end, is the idea that creative activity is morally significant, one way or another.<BR/><BR/>"I think it's possible to have a positive duty to provide help to others in need, and this is something that libertarianism alone cannot account for."<BR/><BR/>That's something I do want to acknowledge. I don't think any kind of libertarianism (not even the left-kind) can account for all the duties which we as moral agents have. Equally, I think, utilitarianism cannot account for the kinds of moral reasons with which libertarians concern themselves. I suppose my claim would be (1) that libertarians and utilitarians have noticed two different kinds of moral reasons, and (2) that these two kinds of moral reasons are both pressing -- they both "throw weight."<BR/><BR/>"I'm wondering which part of this picture [i.e. the standard left-libertarian picture] leads you reject it?"<BR/><BR/>I'd want to replace self-ownership with the "creator principle" described above. So in my preferred picture, natural resources are the "common property of all," just as left-libertarians say; but it is *individuals' creative output*, rather than the individuals themselves, which is the basis of private property.<BR/><BR/>I don't take this modified picture to be substantially different, in the end, from ordinary left-libertarianism. I don't exactly *reject* self-ownership; I think it is entirely possible for persons to own themselves, and I think it is likely that most persons (or anyway most mentally competent adults) do own themselves. What I reject is the idea that self-ownership is a legitimate place to begin. For one thing, not all persons, in my view, even *do* own themselves. I think children might not own themselves, for instance. (Maybe this is why you can force a child to go to piano practice without violating any of her rights.) If children don't own themselves, but adults do, then something more fundamental than a principle of self-ownership must explain why. I think the "creator principle" can do this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1122353474328817882005-07-26T00:51:00.000-04:002005-07-26T00:51:00.000-04:00Hmm, I really don't find the Creator principle eve...Hmm, I really don't find the Creator principle even remotely plausible. (This ties in with my thoughts on <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/06/musings-on-meaning-of-life.html" REL="nofollow">objective purpose</A>, and how it cannot possibly be externally imposed, even by God.) Even if I could create a child ex nihilo by the sheer force of my will, that would not give me any right whatsoever to "use and dispose of" the child as I please. Quite the opposite: if anything, I would have a moral duty to care for this newly created agent, who has an intrinsic moral worth. I don't think persons are the sorts of things that can be "owned" at all. But insofar as they can be owned at all, surely they can only be <I>self</I>-owned. You note that it can be difficult to convince religious people otherwise. But just because (some) religious people are stubborn and irrational, doesn't mean they're right! ;)<BR/><BR/>But I'll grant that the principle is more plausible when relating to inanimate creations. Nevertheless, I think it's possible to have a positive duty to provide help to others in need, and this is something that libertarianism alone cannot account for. (Well, unless you accept <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/06/reasonable-resolution.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> argument, I suppose.) But you seem to recognize that when you concede the attraction of weak utilitarian principles (etc.) in addition.<BR/><BR/>One final point: I'm not sure what work the denial of full self-ownership is doing for you. As I understand left-libertarianism, it standardly accepts self-ownership, but denies world-ownership. That is, it takes natural resources to be the common property of all, which must be distributed fairly before laissez faire interactions may justly proceed. I'm wondering which part of this picture leads you reject it?Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1122084018596945382005-07-22T22:00:00.000-04:002005-07-22T22:00:00.000-04:00hi, if anyone is interested in visiting my new blo...hi, if anyone is interested in visiting my new blog i'd love some visitors : ) it's a right wing blog, feel free to come agree or debate with me<BR/><BR/>jesuscrux.blogspot.comRebel Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360746393756155346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1122040948512652842005-07-22T10:02:00.000-04:002005-07-22T10:02:00.000-04:00Well, the idea is that you have the right to "use ...Well, the idea is that you have the right to "use and dispose of" whatever you create. This includes the right to give it away. And when I help you move, normally the understanding is that I am giving you something (i.e. giving you help), not trading something for something else. So it makes sense that my creative act in that case doesn't bring about any particular obligations on your part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1121989176564372712005-07-21T19:39:00.000-04:002005-07-21T19:39:00.000-04:00I agree that human beings' ability to create is de...I agree that human beings' ability to create is dependent on their social circumstances, etc. This is another way in which human creative activity is weird, and it is another reason I think it is worthwhile to consider the case of God. The case of God leaves all that complexity behind, and allows you to see more clearly what a genuine creative act *would* entitle you to do, without requiring you to think about whether human beings ever actually engage in creative acts.<BR/><BR/>With regard to human beings, I don't think it's right to say (as I think you at least suggested) that since one's ability to create is dependent on social circumstances, etc., one never engages in any genuine act of creation. Creative acts, in my view, don't need to be "spontaneous" or "out of nothing" in order to be creative acts. <BR/><BR/>I think it's clear that human beings are creators of something or other. To avoid my conclusions, I think you're better off arguing that human creative activity does not entitle anyone to anything, than you would be arguing that human beings aren't creative, since (I think) that latter assertion is clearly false.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the "natural resources problem" infects every instance in which property rights are ascribed. Everything man-made has a natural resource component.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I'd like to admit that I clearly need to think about all this a lot more before I will have a set of adequately defensible views. But I think/hope that I am going down something like the right track. Clearly, at any rate, I think there is something morally significant and entitling about creative activity. The tasks are (1) to really explain how and to what your creative activity entitles you; (2) to really explain how human creative activity works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1121929270141824462005-07-21T03:01:00.000-04:002005-07-21T03:01:00.000-04:00Maybe one could say each thing is created by a num...Maybe one could say each thing is created by a number of things coming together - for example you make hte quilt but you could not do so without someone supplying the material or showing you the plan etc.<BR/>thus even the baby has a sort of communal ownership. <BR/>such logic cant apply to the the creator however because what does "a right" or "a reason" mean at that level? there is no basic logic for him to base that on nor is there any higher standard for him to be measured against because if he is as one can imagine a god (omnicience ompnipresence omnipotent) then these things dont exist outside his "actions". So the analysis quickly decends into nonsense rather like trying to see if the earth falls downwards. (ok maybe not the greatest example but hey)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1121926155327264722005-07-21T02:09:00.000-04:002005-07-21T02:09:00.000-04:00I don't think I'm committed to say here that God h...I don't think I'm committed to say here that God has a right to torture us; only to say that the fact that God created us is a *reason that favors* his having the right to torture us. I can appeal to something else to override that reason. Since many people do in fact believe that God has a right to torture us, I don't think it's all that crazy to say that there are reasons that favor his having that right.<BR/><BR/>Some similar reply will be available to your baby-making example. However, I don't think I even need to make that sort of reply. In the case of baby-making, there is the same complexity which is present in all human creative acts: You and your hypothetical wife didn't create the whole baby; you instead made the baby out of something else -- your genetic material, for instance -- and I'm not convinced that you have any rightful claim to your genetic material. So at least part of the baby -- its genetic material -- doesn't belong to you. <BR/><BR/>Baby-making is weird. I'm not sure how to deal with it, and I'm not sure *any* extant moral theory has the resources to deal with it fully adequately. At any rate, I'm guessing you're not going to get a good idea of how to treat babies from a theory about property rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1121915105840475342005-07-20T23:05:00.000-04:002005-07-20T23:05:00.000-04:00I do think individuals own themselves. At least I...I do think individuals own themselves. At least I think they own *most* of themselves. I think this is so because I think individuals (adult ones) are largely the products of their own creative acts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com