tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post113982899309467131..comments2023-12-23T10:18:58.321+00:00Comments on The Extra Bold Blog: On prosperity...Joe Ottenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-1139931189948163012006-02-14T15:33:00.000+00:002006-02-14T15:33:00.000+00:00That is quite plainly not what I am saying - I jus...That is quite plainly not what I am saying - I just said that it is good for people to have property, which is the opposite of what you accuse me of.<BR/><BR/>The reason for this confusion appears to be that I am talking about recognised legal property, and you seem to be talking about a kind of 'natural law' property. Hobbes etc.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, given a natural property concept and a communist state, what you have is mass theft and therefore harm. My point would be that the harm remains even without a natural property concept. <BR/><BR/>I would rather avoid arguments based on the concept of natural property. It seems to me no sounder than claiming "it is obvious that I should own this". Socialists make the same argument when demanding that workers should enjoy the fruits of their labour, "which they have ... earned with the work of their body and mind". (If you are the same anonymous as posted the first comment).<BR/><BR/>This is very much a philosophical difference - I am suspicious of deontological thinking - I would rather justify legal principles such as property by the considerable benefits that they bring, rather than an appeal to what is natural or holy or fair: these are ultimately opinions.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-1139924828435605722006-02-14T13:47:00.000+00:002006-02-14T13:47:00.000+00:00It's not circular. What you are basically saying i...It's not circular. What you are basically saying is, that if your property is stolen, it is no longer your property, so no damage has been done. That if anything is rhetoric and circular.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-1139920152922407152006-02-14T12:29:00.000+00:002006-02-14T12:29:00.000+00:00Yes, I appreciate what you are saying.I suppose my...Yes, I appreciate what you are saying.<BR/><BR/>I suppose my problem is this: saying that "it is right that people are free to decide on their own property" is good rhetoric, but somewhat circular.<BR/><BR/>If you are not free to control something, it is not in any meaningful sense your property. Hence my perspective - that it is good for people to have property, which implies the ability to control it.<BR/><BR/>And indeed, a communist state could claim that all its citizens have full control of all their own property, just that they don't happen to have any property. The state owns it all and isn't selling.<BR/><BR/>So to distinguish liberalism from communism, we would have to add: recognition of pre-existing property and freedom of contract. But both of these principles are tempered in some ways. We don't attempt to unpick historical injustices and conquests in determining ownership, and we prohibit some kinds of contract such as selling oneself into slavery.<BR/><BR/>This is largely as it should be. I don't expect broad principles to be able to suggest in detail what the limits of freedom of contract should be. Whereas utilitarian considerations can.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-1139917769280806702006-02-14T11:49:00.000+00:002006-02-14T11:49:00.000+00:00There is a philosophical difference, though it doe...There is a philosophical difference, though it doesn't have much effect to the outcome.<BR/><BR/>What you are basically saying is, that economic liberalism is good, because it increases prosperity, and prosperity is good. That's a utilitarian approach.<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is that economic liberalism is just, because it is right that people are free to decide on their own body and property. That's a natural rights approach.<BR/><BR/>You can support economic liberalism for either of the reasons mentioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-1139838598252976752006-02-13T13:49:00.000+00:002006-02-13T13:49:00.000+00:00Hmmm. How alternative is that? I am saying that is...Hmmm. How alternative is that? I am saying that is good for people to be able to spend their own money, enjoy their own assets, etc. That is more or less the same as what you are saying.<BR/><BR/>What are the differences? <BR/><BR/>1. I didn't say 'their "own" money', because that prejudges the question of property. It doesn't need to be prejudged, we win the argument over the protection of property hands down.<BR/><BR/>2. I don't use the language of rights. This seems appropriate - asserting a right is the same as making a political demand. I would rather such political demands are the conclusions rather than the premises of an analysis. Again, why prejudge the argument when we can win it?Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-1139837846531398712006-02-13T13:37:00.000+00:002006-02-13T13:37:00.000+00:00"So, weighing in: economic liberalism is broadly s...<I>"So, weighing in: economic liberalism is broadly speaking, the idea that it is good for people to have money that they are free to spend. That is, that prosperity is good."</I><BR/><BR/>Here's an alternative view: Economic liberalism is the idea that it is right that people are free to decide on their own property, which they have either earned with the work of their body and mind (which they according to liberalism own), or has been given them as a present or inheritance by somebody who has earned it (and thus has the right to decide what to do with his or her property).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com