Libertarianism and distributive justice

[@thetragicghostking]

Kane you are my life saver. I've got an exam on political philosophy at uni and this is one of the topics that will deffo come up.

[@kennethconnally4356]

To add on to the criticism of Locke's account of initial acquisition of property: even if we accept that the first acquisition of land left "enough and as good" for everyone else, surely at some point people started unjustly appropriating unclaimed land, since I can't currently go anywhere to put up a flag and claim a piece of arable land for myself. If you want land nowadays, your only option is to purchase it from a previous owner. Under Locke's rules, the process of appropriating common land should have stopped at the point where one more acquisition would not have left enough and as good land for others (and deciding where this point is looks to me like a Sorites paradox).

[@jorgemachado5317]

In nozick's argument there is something interesting: P1: Nozick argument pressuposes that the value someone produces comes from labor P2: If value comes from labor, Karl Marx's labor theory of value is true P3: If labor theory of value is true turns out that's impossible to sell your labor power without the extraction of surplus labor C: If surplus labor and state taxation is theft then the only chance to emancipate humanity is communism, every worker free to produce and collect the fruits of their own labor

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

Nozick's theory of value and Karl Marx's are not using the same semantics. Nozick is saying - if you produce value, it must have come from your labor. Marx is saying - if you labor, you produce value. Those are not equivalent statments, as under Nozick's view, you could labor all day long and still never produce any value at all, in contradiction to Marx's view.

[@jorgemachado5317]

​@@RyanApplegatePhD They use different semantics indeed. But Marx is not saying that at all. If you labor, you produce value is an ahistorical claim - everything that Marx was against. If you work on a feudal society you can't produce any value. You produce only USE VALUES. Value is a social property that is historical and specific to capitalism. There is not even a labor theory of value in Marx - the term was never used by him and you will never find this terminology on his works except to refer to Adam Smith and Ricardo. I'm not an expert on Nozick so i probably commited an error about his work. But Marx i know pretty well now

[@jorgemachado5317]

Marx wrote in the first few pages of Das Kapital: "Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value" Most criticisms of Marx work comes from people that never read it. This particular reduction of Marx theory to "Labor = Value" is one of those weak criticisms

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

@@jorgemachado5317 I have not read Marx myself, so you got me there. I am perhaps making the same error that is broadly made about critics of Marx. I guess I could critique your original argument based on (1) saying that Nozick is wrong, in that only part of the value comes from the labor needed to produce something. Or (2) there are alternative theories that suppose value comes from labor that are not those of Marx.

[@jorgemachado5317]

​@@RyanApplegatePhD I think you are right. The argument is not sound. Even if a labor theory is right, there are a variety of theories based on labor The problem with all theories of value, however, is that all of them seems to depend on an ahistorical concept of value. Marx's approach tries to understand what is specific to capitalism in term of value. So the conclusion is that necessarilly we can organize the economy differently then is organized on this particular moment in history. All other theories seems to assume there is only a way to organize an economy, as if social sciences were like mathematics or physics, not human constructions

[@alexandeur]

A controversial topic, yet an excellent video! As always, thanx so much!

[@devos3212]

I’ve always been really attracted to libertarianism too so I try to avoid dogmatic thinking about it. One of the things that really pisses me off about it is how libertarians are so confident that’s they have the ultimate idea of how things should be. Of course you get this within all political philosophies but i guess thats why it’s so hard for me to identify with any owe of these groups. Which of course is hard when humans just want to find a tribe lol

[@glennmoots6556]

The ad proceeding it is Kamala Harris asking for money :D

[@Ansatz66]

It is backward to view justice as defined by conditions in the past. The past is gone and it can never hurt anyone ever again, no matter how bad it may have been at the time. What we really have cause to worry about is the future, since that still has the potential to hurt people. If our concept of justice considers only the past and completely ignores the future, then surely we open ourselves up to the potential of a horrible future that we're not even attempting to avoid. The real question we should be asking is not how someone came to own some property through a chain of events in the past, but rather what are the consequences in the future of this person owning this property? If we can get the best outcomes through this person owning this property, then let's ignore the past and go for the best outcome we can get.

[@jmanakajosh9354]

And if we can't get good outcomes from them owning property lets collectively expropriate, no taxes, just take.

[@calebm6818]

I think you might be understating the impact that the past has on justice. It seems like there are several examples in which the past is relevant to justice in the present and the future. For instance, when someone steals from you in the past, it doesn't become irrelevant just because it's in the past. Similarly, if a company exploits some developing nation for its resources, it isn't absolved of moral responsibility just because it happened in the past. In fact, most court cases--where their purpose is to do the just thing--involve dealing with something that happened in the past.

[@Ansatz66]

@@calebm6818 : The past is not the reason why we should put thieves in prison. We should put thieves in prison for the sake of the future, to protect all those people that the thief might steal from in the future. Imagine that a thief gets into a traffic accident while trying to escape capture and the resulting head injury somehow eliminates the urge to steal and doctors confirm that this person will never again be a thief. There's no reason to imprison that person because no one in the future will be at risk from this person being free. It's very difficult to find the best way toward the best future. Being distracted by things that have already come and gone won't make the task any easier.

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

@@Ansatz66 But it would be worth putting that thief in prison to send a message to would be, future thieves, that stealing is wrong and will be punished.

[@pedroparamo4938]

21:07 Neckbeards for life bro :D

[@neoepicurean3772]

I just wrote an essay on exactly this topic which followed your video very closely. You're so good at these videos. Any chance you can do one on political obligation? I have an exam coming up on that. Plato's parental analogy, fair-play argument, dire consequences argument, consent and contractarian arguments etc. That'd be great.

[@Левиафан-о7ь]

ну все маргинал в пролете, его к светову на стрим надо

[@SnowCones101]

libertarianism is so funny

[@wannesdemaeyer3343]

You could use the same arguments that you give for "taxation is theft" to say that "wage labour is theft". Since most rich people, with maybe the exclusion of film stars etc., gain most of their money by employing people by wage labour, which is, in the same way that taxation is, theft, it's not that big of a stretch to say that rich people stole the money in stead of earned it.

[@yourfutureself3392]

Amazing video

[@holdengoodall8213]

As an white American, ideas of labor giving cause to ownership are soured by the fact that I, among most other Americans, am living on stolen land. Can I justly own something that was unjustly provided to me?

[@mikealexander1935]

The problem with labor mixing is there is no unowned part of the world to which individuals have access in order to "mix their labor". Ownership implies exclusion of access or use by another. Suppose I decide to conduct illegal drug sales on my "property". I may find police raiding my property and arresting me and my associated. Obviously I did not own the property after all since I could not exclude the cops from access. No level of improvements/investment in that property creates sufficient "labor mixing" to prevent the police from accessing my property. In actuality we do not really own our property, but rather hold it "in fief" from the sovereign. By choosing to like under the authority of one "liege lord" over another wealth subjects owe "scuttage" to that lo and so are obliged to pay taxes.

[@mikealexander1935]

The problem with libertarianism is it assumes that there is such a thing as freedom to act without violation of others rights.One's existence in the world affects others, which when adverse can be seen as a violation of rights. To do anything will violate others rights in some way and so constitute a taking for which compensation is due. For example, the state is not the primary guarantor of law and order. This service is provided by societal norms whcih are taught and enforced informally by the populace. Social norms also shape markets as institutions and structure economic exchange. Without these norms wealth accumulation is not possible. Thus the libertarian is using a social good without compensation. People benefit from this service is proportion to their wealth. In modern societies the state is ultimately responsible providing this compensation. Taxes extracted in proportion to wealth are therefore justified to fund this compensation. Put a different way, wealth is a cultural construct that without some form of state-like authority doesn't exist. That one has acquired wealth means they have made use of the culture. Rent is then owed to the cultural authorities which one is required to pay.

[@joaoramongomesdasilva9008]

Very good.. i would like to see more on libertarianism especialy o self ownership. Other good topic would be artificial inteligence e ethical implicarions ...

[@jmanakajosh9354]

24:40 you could transfer OR you could make public information on how much they have. Say I walk into a store and actually knew for instance what % of each dollar went to my server, the distributor or the owner, *surely my choices could then AT LEAST COULD change if I and others were aware how much Chamberlain was making.* We already see prices communicate this. You don't go out and buy gold pizza, because you know you could buy a car with that same money.

[@GeorgWilde]

(1) anarchy (2) minimal state with voluntary taxation Those two are basically the same. If you are not forced to support the structure, it basically is no longer a state.

[@angelawho9083]

#Jubillee. #CatholicWorkers? @#DorothyDaysPeterBreggin?

[@TheFinntronaut]

Regarding the guy that's gonna blow a town to kingdom come with their rightly acquired bombs, stopping them from doing it would simply be self-defense, so a libertarian wouldn't take issue with stopping them, nor would it be a violation of property rights to do so precisely because the action being stopped is an attempted violation of property rights. Regarding the person starving and another person having a buffet of unused food, there is no expectation that the starving person will obey property rights, but they would indeed be punished if they did disobey them under the libertarian justice. Just consider the implication of a person so useless to society in any way that nobody's willing to even give them so much as food to survive. Why should such a person be kept alive when nobody - not even you - are willing to keep them alive? The request of the non-libertarian is for society to do what is against its interests, which is an unreasonable request.

[@animore8626]

The implication that it's morally permissible to let people who are "useless to society" starve seems incredibly counter to any of our ethical intuitions that we have. Hobos are, by most measures, useless to society in terms of productivity. Should we let them starve? Would it not be ethically in the right to provide them food? Children are, in their present state, pretty useless to society. Would it be okay to let them starve? In fact, we seem to be pretty morally obligated to help others with their basic needs, independent of how "useful" they are to society. If you see a child drowning in a lake, all else equal, do you not in some sense feel obligated to help that drowning child out of the lake? Or if you see a hobo, or someone in a vegetative state, are you not morally obligated to help them? It seems pretty difficult. verging on impossible, to even imagine a scenario where an individual is so "useless" that I wouldn't think about feeding them if I had the option to and food was readily available. If you're thinking of individuals that are morally reprehensible, that seems pretty different from someone who's "useless."

[@TheFinntronaut]

@@animore8626 We might consider it useful for society to keep the hobos alive. In fact, if there's a hobo starving and nobody is willing to give them food, then I just understand that to mean that people's moral intuitions are fine with the hobo starving; otherwise people would give the hobo food so that they don't starve, I think. Assuming that people are willing to feed the hobos, then we find that the hobos are actually productive members of society as evaluated by society. Their productive contribution just happens to be "being a human and remaining alive". Assuming that people are not willing to feed the hobos, then you can force them to feed the hobos with the threat of violence, but now the argument appealing to people's moral intuitions doesn't work anymore, or to the extent that it works, it relies on the hypocrisy of humans to say one thing with their mouths and not to follow it through with their actions.

[@Endoterrestrials]

pure ideology

[@halpilkington8234]

where is this article by 'Lauryn lemansky' - not sure how its spelt? I couldn't find any article called 'Justice to Charity' under that name?

[@KaneB]

The name is Loren Lomasky.

[@halpilkington8234]

Kane B thank you!

[@NelsonGuedes]

31:35 we are overusing resources RIGHT NOW, under capitalism, and, in fact, much more than if resources were held in common. On top of that, most of the resources are going to a tiny elite, instead of to a lot of people, so it is much worse than simply overusing resources. The tragedy of the commons argument is just plain wrong.

[@sirtheodorefranciswindsor]

libertarianism NOOOO

[@michaelhermens8409]

The main problem for many libertarians like me is the title of your video: "Distributive" and "Justice." The first problem is that wealth is not distributed (see Thomas Sowell). The second is that "Distributive" means you get what you need, but not what you deserve. "Justice" normally means you get what you deserve, not what you need.

[@gabri41200]

False. Distributive means distributive. Justice means justice.

[@GeorgWilde]

52:44 This argument is not valid. To defend property rights, you practice defensive violence. That's how they are enforced. To propose that we have to violate property rights a little just to protect property rights as such is contradictory. The very porposse of property rights is that you don't have to do what you propose there. Right libertarians are property rights absolutists. And voluntaryism also disagrees. Just to make sure. You propose that state protects the property rights of the rich, or somehow rich against those poor who would go to loot and riot. This is really terrible. Property rights are for everyone and they are not bought, or on the mercy of a mob. And you really create two classes of people there (when i'm not counting the officials of the state).

[@yourfutureself3392]

A libertarian aproach to wellfare I read about is that it's justified to steal from somebody to save a life. Someone's positive right to life trumps someone else's negative private property right. Therefore, it is permissible to tax people to garantee food and health to others. There could also be a centralized State-administered charity paid for through voluntary taxes.

[@JXZX1]

Came for the quaint affection for neckbeards. Stayed for the affable yet trenchant philosophical observations.

[@GeorgWilde]

To be compatible with libertarianism, any "redistribution" must be voluntary. You can set up fraternal societies, covenants where certain redistribution will be part of the contract - if you get people to enter it voluntarily, then you have it.

[@billybigbollocks5369]

Lefties object that such a society would be selfish and coercion is necessary. I always wonder where all the selfless, empathetic, altruists go when the libertarian state is constituted...It's not as if they all disappear. It's almost like their positions were selfish and self-serving to begin with. No longer having the ability to use the state to take money from others they would resign themselves to obtaining it by whatever other means....

[@kkounal974]

The problem and the disagreement among left and right libertarians isn't that it must be voluntary, it is how do we get there, it's the paradox of intolerance but switch intolerance with being voluntary.

[@GeorgWilde]

@@kkounal974 Can you explain it more? By the paradox you probably mean that society that practices mostly voluntary relationship will eventually degenerate into society where very little is voluntary. Can you explain why? And can you explain what does that have to do with the difference between left and right libertarians? What's the difference in "getting there"? For example, me as "rightist libertarian", i see no single way to "get there". I am also convinced that it's not revolution, where we would just tear down bureaucracy, law enforcement and replace it with something else or nothing. For me it's more like nation states getting into budgetary crises, legitimacy crisis (inherently failing at their stated missions) and other problems, change in culture - mainly getting rid of the false beliefs about what nation state does, and hopefully changes in technology that will make free living (without permission of the state) more feasible. If however large groups of people want to form unions and take power from some corporations or cancel someone, i have nothing against them. I think it will be unfortunate if there is still a state that isn't delegitimized and a type of "riots" will result in a dynamic where the law enforcement will grow and law become more intrusive as a result. But whatever. Leftists often say that ancap still has state because each big reality/land/factory owner or protection agency is like a little state. But if they start aggressing (doing something involuntary), they at least don't have the legitimation of a nation state, are far smaller and are not in the position where everybody else is already disarmed. So the people can quickly turn against them i think.

[@kkounal974]

@@GeorgWilde Old comment but sure. Simply, environmental factors. If all is considered fair game i.e. you adopt a view of power == justice, then all it takes are tiny environmental factors outside our control to tip the scales a bit so that feedback loops of accumulation of resources become self sustaining and it degenerates. It doesn't necessarily matter if symbiosis is theoretically superior, it's a prisoner's dilemma sort of situation. Even egalitarian tribes had levelling mechanisms. So that's point 1, robustness implies some shared ethics. Point 2 is that i think we can agree that we live in very unequal societies. How do we progress to less unequal ones? Purely voluntarily is out of the question, power is addictive and not only will therefore be resistance to attempts to limit the inequalities, self defense would be crucial and absolutely necessary. History however has showed that whatever it may be, it must be very bottom up or it's bound to go wrong.

[@NelsonGuedes]

10:00 it's interesting how these arguments and responses about taxation being theft is very similar to the arguments of profit being theft...

[@NelsonGuedes]

@Bob Smith ah, yes, nothing says "voluntary" more than having the wealth you created taken from you 😒