on libertarianism and the creation of property rights
by Vinay Gupta • May 10, 2008 • The Global Picture • 5 Comments
the crux of it is that there’s no contract – inclding agreement to any given framework of property rights – that a new born can be said to have agreed to.
and treating land as property isn’t a universal value – not everybody does it
and this is why libertarianism’s stance on property rights is a serious problem – there’s no intergenerational consent to the contract
which recognizes given items as property, be it land rights or IP, both of which are things which are defined differently from one culture to another
this is what I’m chewing on right now (from a conversation on IM)
“Libertarianism’s stance on property rights is a serious problem – there’s no intergenerational consent to the contract”
Does there exist some political philosophy for which “intergenerational consent” – whatever that may mean – is a lesser problem?
It’s a problem for libertarianism because libertarianism is *rational* but, yeah, there is a system which doesn’t have this issue…… (wait for it…) communism
It’s just everything *else* is wrong with that one.
So why not state, then, that:
“The stance of every political philosophy so far (other than communism) on property rights is a serious problem – there’s no intergenerational consent to the contract”
…instead of singling out libertarianism, thus implying that it, especially, has some sort of a special problem here?
You’ll note that this is, in essence, the same criticism I had regarding your abuse of “capitalism”, earlier.
I guess if Guptastan will have a public relation department, I should work there
The distinction is that I’m trying to implement Libertarianism, so I care about it’s (few) flaws much more than those of other systems!
At the end of the day, it’s reasonable and rational, right up until “what is property?” – which gets into IP, gets into ecology, gets into land. Good answers to those questions might make it much, much easier to start and operate WSLEs.
For example, the basic Guptastan case on IP is simple: no law. It’s a pirate state, and we forbid exports so we are good neighbors. The case on guns is fairly simple: carry of personal arms is encouraged. But the edge case on personal arms… where is that? Nukes? I’m not sure. Personal bioweapons?
But, for now, that’s not a big issue. I think we could suggest that “personal arms” has a fairly clear meaning, respectfully ask people not to import or manufacture explosives for the first five years, and re-examine it then.
A compromise, but a workable one for most people I think.
But land rights… land rights is *hard*. The constraint of a 20 year lease makes it much, much easier to address those issues, but they’re still there, fundamental, waiting to be worked on.