The author points out that Libertarianism was essentially designed by the escapee from the Soviet Union, Ayn Rand, as the Uncommunism. This was quite interesting to me:
| Communism | Libertarianism | |
| Property is theft | Property is sacred | |
| Totalitarianism | Any government is bad | |
| Capitalists are baby-eating villains | Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes | |
| Workers should rule | Worker activism is evil | |
| The poor are oppressed | The poor are pampered good-for-nothings |
Let me comment on just one small part of the post I referred to. Note the contradiction between the two parts of Libertarianism I placed in Italics. Those are Property is sacred and Any government is bad.
Libertarians make property rights into an unquestionable area of faith. That reminds me of a recent speculation regarding where the idea of property rights may have come from. Property rights may have been a side effect of the taming of wolves in north east Asia when they first became because dogs. But the idea of property was not that of the dog owner. It was the idea of the dog.
Dogs are hierarchical animals, and they adopt leaders. It is thought by some that when the the dogs first adopted their own people as leaders or Alpha dogs, then other people recognized that certain dogs belonged to certain people. As a result, the concept of property rights was born.
But the concept came from the dogs first. The dogs adopted leaders, people recognized that certain dogs belonged to specific people, and the concept of "Property rights" was born. Dogs first acted as property, people then recognized the dogs behavior as property, and people later adopted the idea.
It is clear, though that there is nothing natural or religious about property rights. Property rights are a social concept which do not exist unless society enforces them. Natural law is garbage until its supporters can demonstrate (scientifically) a mechanism by which it can be shown to be enforced in society. They've had a long time, and failed totally.
A person does not own land unless that ownership is recorded by the government and enforced in the courts. The same is true of a person's car, their wristwatch, or anything else. Not only must the ownership be recognized by others and recorded, there must also be socially accepted rules that determine how such ownership can be transferred from one person to another.
That makes Libertarianism quite contradictory. It makes an article of faith of property rights but also declares any government as bad. The two cannot coexist. It is really that simple. No government means no property beyond that which can be personally enforced using force. [Note - this is another basic belief of Libertarianism - no one can use force on any other person.]
Is property ownership an innate characteristic of human society? No. It is a good idea, enforced by society through government. Ask the dog who owns you. Or the cat who owns both of you. They know that they only own you while they have you in sight and under their paw.
2 comments:
Libertarians believe that the smallest government is best. One of the few things it should do and do well is protect people's rights of, and to, property.
I'm sure back in those 'dog owning' days both dogs and humans would get angry if another being tried to take away their food or shelter or mate.
Houses, cars and businesses can't 'own' people of course so we are left with property rights being for individual entities' rights to decisions over their property.
property rights -
people's rights to own it
and control it
not the state's to steal it
and give to someone else
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
NO to property rights
none for the little people
those who can't pay favors
http://haltterrorism.com/
.
Property rights are a key element in making any modern industrial economy work, and any effort to frame the argument as being "pro property rights" against "opposed to property rights" is pure idiocy.
My point is that property rights are defined and enforced by society, and in modern societies, that means by government.
It is interesting that America was civilized using the latest technology of surveying and with government registration of land rights, in a way that no prior country could have been. Neither the astronomy nor the surveying technology that permitted that existed prior to the 18th and early 19th century.
But what is a property right? A person can decide, within given frameworks, of how to use and dispose of property he owns. But does the owner of a piece of land have the right to build a dam on a stream that prevents everyone downstream from getting water? Of course not. Or can a person wipe out an endangered species just because the last members of that species is found on his land?
There are no property rights to unsecured air because everyone has to have it to survive and it cannot be controlled outside of a tank. Government has to protect such necessities which are common goods.
While I will agree that the smallest government is best, the last sixty years of American history have clearly shown that for individuals to have access to health care when ill some form of insurance is required, and the process of private companies selling health insurance, defining what is covered, and restricting coverages is simply unworkable. It costs at least 10% of the annual payout to sell the insurance (this is a medically sterile expense)while the administration of benefits by several thousand companies with different procedures is another medically sterile process and costs at least 15% of the amount paid out each year. Then there problem individual companies have in keeping people who are nto eligible from being covered out of the system run at least another 10% of waste.
The result is that private health insurance companies make their money by refusing to pay large claims. They insure only people who don't need health care, collect the premiums, pay the sales people, the administratirs and their CEO's, and make their profit by canceling policies if they can find a rule that was violated, mostly arcane rules that cannot be known in advance.
Government would perform better on every one of those flaws. Not perfectly, but better and cheaper. The biggest advantage is that no single company could carve out pools of healthy individuals, thereby eliminating the idea of insurance from the process.
But of course, a government doint that would be larger than it is now. Smaller than the wasteful insurance companies, but larger than present government.
Some things are just flat done better by government. Others are done better by a mixture of government and business (eg. banks and all financial institutions because they don't operate int he real economy.) But razor blades and tooth paste are best supplied by private enterprise.
The real point is that the broad-brush Libertarian prescriptions for the most part are too simplistic to work. The clear example of the undefined idea of property rights uber alles is an excellent example.
I have year to meet an Libertarian who will realistically analyze the characteristics of property rights or the detailed characteristics of markets and when they fail. Libertarian rhetoric is pure and mostly ignorant Pollyanna.
Can a property owner on the U.S. border prevent the government from building a fence that is needed to stop illegal immigration? That's complicated, and the concept of property rights cannot be decisive in the decision.
Or, can a music publisher sell you a song on hard media, then claim you are violating their property rights when you copy that song to your computer or ipod?
Post a Comment