Comments on: Liberty, Through Thick and Thin http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/ Conservatism for punks. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:04:40 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Will Wilkinson on the naivety of Libertarianism – mutually occluded http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/comment-page-1/#comment-26069 Will Wilkinson on the naivety of Libertarianism – mutually occluded Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:45:00 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/#comment-26069 [...] Todd Seavey continues to argue that libertarianism just is the view that the only legitimate function of the state (if it has any legitimate function) is to protect property rights, and that sticking to this view saves us from confusing culture war politics. But the definition of legitimate property rights is confusing culture war politics. There is nothing especially clear-headed, “thin,” or even libertarian about emphasizing the inviolability of property rights. [...] [...] Todd Seavey continues to argue that libertarianism just is the view that the only legitimate function of the state (if it has any legitimate function) is to protect property rights, and that sticking to this view saves us from confusing culture war politics. But the definition of legitimate property rights is confusing culture war politics. There is nothing especially clear-headed, “thin,” or even libertarian about emphasizing the inviolability of property rights. [...]

]]> By: The Indeterminacy of Propertarianism http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/comment-page-1/#comment-25665 The Indeterminacy of Propertarianism Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:01:53 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/#comment-25665 [...] Todd Seavey continues to argue that libertarianism just is the view that the only legitimate function of the state (if it has any legitimate function) is to protect property rights, and that sticking to this view saves us from confusing culture war politics. But the definition of legitimate property rights is confusing culture war politics. There is nothing especially clear-headed, “thin,” or even libertarian about emphasizing the inviolability of property rights. [...] [...] Todd Seavey continues to argue that libertarianism just is the view that the only legitimate function of the state (if it has any legitimate function) is to protect property rights, and that sticking to this view saves us from confusing culture war politics. But the definition of legitimate property rights is confusing culture war politics. There is nothing especially clear-headed, “thin,” or even libertarian about emphasizing the inviolability of property rights. [...]

]]> By: Libertarian quotes « Muse Free http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/comment-page-1/#comment-25479 Libertarian quotes « Muse Free Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:39:12 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/#comment-25479 [...] Todd Seavey on why the ambiguity of property rights at the boundaries does not mean that the concept becomes less important or that we should reject it as the basis of libertarian philosophy: Now, a few very bright, well-informed commenters over the past few weeks who consider themselves more or less libertarians have said they think libertarianism is as guilty of being amorphous as feminism (and, crucially, that’s not my biggest complaint about feminism), with one noting that even hardcore anarcho-capitalist David Friedman (son of Milton) points out tough cases such as whether the photons from someone’s flashlight falling upon you constitute trespass. But such examples were meant to address ambiguities in a property rights system, not ambiguity about whether property rights are central to his/our philosophy, as Will Wilkinson at least seems to think is debatable. [..] It’s important to distinguish between saying property rights are 100% rigid and unambiguous (which I’m not really saying) and saying property rights and property rights violations are the central concerns of the philosophy and provide the traditional litmus test for what is or is not considered permissible under a libertarian regime (and this I certainly am saying, as are plenty of other people). [...] [...] Todd Seavey on why the ambiguity of property rights at the boundaries does not mean that the concept becomes less important or that we should reject it as the basis of libertarian philosophy: Now, a few very bright, well-informed commenters over the past few weeks who consider themselves more or less libertarians have said they think libertarianism is as guilty of being amorphous as feminism (and, crucially, that’s not my biggest complaint about feminism), with one noting that even hardcore anarcho-capitalist David Friedman (son of Milton) points out tough cases such as whether the photons from someone’s flashlight falling upon you constitute trespass. But such examples were meant to address ambiguities in a property rights system, not ambiguity about whether property rights are central to his/our philosophy, as Will Wilkinson at least seems to think is debatable. [..] It’s important to distinguish between saying property rights are 100% rigid and unambiguous (which I’m not really saying) and saying property rights and property rights violations are the central concerns of the philosophy and provide the traditional litmus test for what is or is not considered permissible under a libertarian regime (and this I certainly am saying, as are plenty of other people). [...]

]]> By: Ken Silber http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/comment-page-1/#comment-25453 Ken Silber Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:55:43 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/#comment-25453 Sorry, don't think I'm right for the IP debate, being not particularly affixed to one side or the other. Sorry, don’t think I’m right for the IP debate, being not particularly affixed to one side or the other.

]]> By: Todd Seavey http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/comment-page-1/#comment-25450 Todd Seavey Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:27:31 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/#comment-25450 But this is precisely one of those cases I've mentioned where there is ambiguity about how to apply property rights but _not_ disagreement that property rights is the litmus test for settling the issue. For, shocking as this may sound, libertarians are divided about whether (or to what extent) there should be such a thing as "intellectual property rights" -- _not_ because they think those rights exist but are trumped by other things but because some just don't think you can own an idea the way you can own, say, a sofa. The argument -- to which I'm sympathetic, though this is precisely one of those coalition-splitting issues I try to avoid -- is essentially the same as the one used on playgrounds across America (which does not by any means make it wrong): If you take my lunch, I have none, but if you take an idea from me, now we both have it and can use it. This raises legal questions with potentially huge economic ramifications (including for computers and pharmaceuticals, not to mention for writers), so it'd be nice to have big, intelligent, public debate on the topic -- and so we shall, at Lolita Bar at 8pm on Wed., Jan. 7, with _former_ libertarian Mitch Golden (and he calls himself "former" -- I'm not saying that because of his position on the IP question) arguing that IP is theft, and an as-yet-unrecruited person arguing for staunch IP enforcement...perhaps Ken? But this is precisely one of those cases I’ve mentioned where there is ambiguity about how to apply property rights but _not_ disagreement that property rights is the litmus test for settling the issue. For, shocking as this may sound, libertarians are divided about whether (or to what extent) there should be such a thing as “intellectual property rights” — _not_ because they think those rights exist but are trumped by other things but because some just don’t think you can own an idea the way you can own, say, a sofa.

The argument — to which I’m sympathetic, though this is precisely one of those coalition-splitting issues I try to avoid — is essentially the same as the one used on playgrounds across America (which does not by any means make it wrong): If you take my lunch, I have none, but if you take an idea from me, now we both have it and can use it.

This raises legal questions with potentially huge economic ramifications (including for computers and pharmaceuticals, not to mention for writers), so it’d be nice to have big, intelligent, public debate on the topic — and so we shall, at Lolita Bar at 8pm on Wed., Jan. 7, with _former_ libertarian Mitch Golden (and he calls himself “former” — I’m not saying that because of his position on the IP question) arguing that IP is theft, and an as-yet-unrecruited person arguing for staunch IP enforcement…perhaps Ken?

]]> By: Ken Silber http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/comment-page-1/#comment-25443 Ken Silber Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:09:54 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/08/liberty-through-thick-and-thin/#comment-25443 Look at the recent debates about intellectual property rights, discussed <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080430-is-lessigs-free-culture-just-a-modern-das-kopyright.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a> If libertarianism were reducible to defense of property rights, there would be a libertarian imperative to defend the companies seeking a strict interpretation of their rights to copyrighted material. But many self-described libertarians are on the other side in such debates, seeming to weigh entrepreneurship and free expression as values against the property rights of established companies. Look at the recent debates about intellectual property rights, discussed here. If libertarianism were reducible to defense of property rights, there would be a libertarian imperative to defend the companies seeking a strict interpretation of their rights to copyrighted material. But many self-described libertarians are on the other side in such debates, seeming to weigh entrepreneurship and free expression as values against the property rights of established companies.

]]>