Liberty Isn't Just Property -- So What Is It?

[Pointedstick]

I’m skeptical that anything good would come of investing all managing power (or governing power) in property holders, who already by definition have some advantage over other people—namely, the advantage of property or, at a more conceptual level, accumulated capital. Worse outcomes would arise from investing all power in the state. But by keeping powers divided among different principles of authority, one preserves several possible ways of life and several avenues of protest and redress should injustice be perpetrated by either the public or private sector. Property limits the power of the state, and the state limits the power of property. Mixture and balance is what preserves liberty as we know it.

Food for thought: don't we already have a system that invests all managing power in property holders? The government is just the ultimate property holder. Think about it: they can tell you what to do on or with your property, and they make the rules regarding who can do or say what within their borders. And those people who "own" property have to pay a tax to the government or else their property is seized. Isn't this just rent?

Don't we really have a property-sovereign system in which the property sovereign (the government) has agreed to grant individuals (and corporations, notably) their own property rights within the larger architecture of the sovereign's property?

[moda0306]

I see government as an entity as both owning property of its own as well as reinforcing the private ownership, but in the end, "government" doesn't own anything.  Property is either used for some individual's direct or indirect benefit, or wasted/destroyed for no good reason. If government "owns" land or if it simply records and dictates ownership it is simply serving to file it into one of those possibilities.  Thinking that "government" benefits from something is kind of impossible.  Government agents may benefit, or government may grow, but in the end property still has to be filed into benefitting some or wasted/destroyed.

Of course, much of our wealth is a result of human creativity, and therefore much more likely naturally connected to one individual or another.  I tend to mentally file this into a different category. It still requires government to help protect, possibly, but in the end it is naturally an extension of a sovereign individual.

In the end, though, we tend to feel pretty comfortable that we get to keep enough of what we earn net of what government actually does for us we wouldn't make the investments in ourselves and the economy around us that we do.  Government may appear to have control, and as an entity I suppose it does, but it's got to please enough people's idea of justice and fairness and leave us alone enough to even exist.

[RuralEngineer]

If the government can tell you what you can or can't do with your property and forcibly seize it if you fail to pay your taxes, in what way does that differ from the landowner/renter relationship?

Also, the government only had to maintain an environment where compliance is preferable to risking death or imprisonment. That's not a very high bar to clear. Taking the lack of people trying to overthrow the government as tacit approval of our current system is foolish. 

[moda0306]

RE,

We get to vote and voice for changes.  That's what I mean when I say they have to do things fairly in the eyes of "most people." 

Perfect?  Absolutely not.

But our alternatives are either anarchy or some sort of pre-decided limits on tyranny of the majority.  Some of the latter just end up being nothing more than fascist states to one degree or another. I tend to think we have a pretty good mix considering the awful range of possibilities.

And yes I suppose we could all be swindled by government.  But I bought a home with the belief that government won't steal my land or make my taxes too unbearable.  However, even most libertarians believe that courts, police, and a military not all that much smaller than ours are legitimate roles of government.  In that sense, even that government has the tools to manipulate who owns what just as they do today.  We give them massive destructive potential with these first founding steps. 

[Libertarian666]

RE,

We get to vote and voice for changes.  That's what I mean when I say they have to do things fairly in the eyes of "most people." 

Perfect?  Absolutely not.

But our alternatives are either anarchy or some sort of pre-decided limits on tyranny of the majority.  Some of the latter just end up being nothing more than fascist states to one degree or another. I tend to think we have a pretty good mix considering the awful range of possibilities.

And yes I suppose we could all be swindled by government.  But I bought a home with the belief that government won't steal my land or make my taxes too unbearable.  However, even most libertarians believe that courts, police, and a military not all that much smaller than ours are legitimate roles of government. In that sense, even that government has the tools to manipulate who owns what just as they do today.  We give them massive destructive potential with these first founding steps.

People who call themselves libertarians may believe that, but no actual libertarians believe that, as libertarianism is based on the premise that we own ourselves and have the right to do as we please with our lives and property. The current government in the US has stated that they can imprison or kill anyone they wish for any reason, subject to no oversight by an even theoretically impartial court. This is as far from libertarian as can be imagined.

Hope that helps.

[AgAuMoney]

Two major steps warping our constitution set us on the path which brought us to where we are today in the U.S.

1) they gave the vote to those with no commitment to the community, in other words those who were not landowners, and even to those who are parasites on the community, thus diluting the vote of the primary stakeholders and taxpayers

2) they put the senate up for popular election, thus diluting the power of the states to control and limit the federal government

[Xan]

Agreed!

The governments of Canada, Mexico, and Kazakhstan have official representatives in Washington, DC, but the state of Texas does not.

[moda0306]

Two major steps warping our constitution set us on the path which brought us to where we are today in the U.S.

1) they gave the vote to those with no commitment to the community, in other words those who were not landowners, and even to those who are parasites on the community, thus diluting the vote of the primary stakeholders and taxpayers

2) they put the senate up for popular election, thus diluting the power of the states to control and limit the federal government

Two major steps warping our constitution set us on the path which brought us to where we are today in the U.S.

1) they gave the vote to those with no commitment to the community, in other words those who were not landowners, and even to those who are parasites on the community, thus diluting the vote of the primary stakeholders and taxpayers

2) they put the senate up for popular election, thus diluting the power of the states to control and limit the federal government

Two major steps warping our constitution set us on the path which brought us to where we are today in the U.S.

1) they gave the vote to those with no commitment to the community, in other words those who were not landowners, and even to those who are parasites on the community, thus diluting the vote of the primary stakeholders and taxpayers

2) they put the senate up for popular election, thus diluting the power of the states to control and limit the federal government

1) Land "ownership" is a myth and opening up to non-landowners happened in the early 1800's, mere decades after the country's founding

2) states are just another, if not moreso, fascist, coercive entity.

As much as I respect the founding fathers, this quote summed up my feelings on all this romanticism:

"My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl."

From "Killing Them Softly"

[MachineGhost]

Two major steps warping our constitution set us on the path which brought us to where we are today in the U.S.

I disagree.  To wit:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century
as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional
time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government ex-
penditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate
state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state
laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state govern-
ment expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns
for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing
over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Con-
trary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something
that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American
government started growing when it did.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... e2c9a9.pdf

[MachineGhost]

"My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl."

Context is everything.  You cannot free the slaves when the muppets are not ready for it!!!

[Pointedstick]

If women generally prefer greater liberalism and more expansive government, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

[Libertarian666]

If women generally prefer greater liberalism and more expansive government, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

If slaveowners generally prefer greater property rights in people and more expansive enforcement of runaway slave laws, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

[Pointedstick]

If women generally prefer greater liberalism and more expansive government, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

If slaveowners generally prefer greater property rights in people and more expansive enforcement of runaway slave laws, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

Because a property right interest in a forcibly enslaved human is an exercise in oppression that offends the  conscience. One might as well ask why murder or rape is wrong.

Sorry, that's all I got. In the end, sometimes I just gotta say, "that's wrong because we're moral humans."

[moda0306]

"My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl."

Context is everything.  You cannot free the slaves when the muppets are not ready for it!!!

Maybe Jefferson was more of a muppet than we'd all like to admit.  I mean I truly do understand that people had to live in the times they were in, but John Adams did so in far more acceptabe a way, to me, than Jefferson or Washington.  Didn't own slaves, and was outwardly opposed to slavery, but realized that essentially being a hippie in 1790 wasn't going to help anyone.  He did the best he could with what he had.

[Pointedstick]

History will judge nearly all of us hypocrites. Doing the same for historical figures no more invalidates their views or accomplishments than it should ours to future generations, IMHO.

[Libertarian666]

If women generally prefer greater liberalism and more expansive government, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

If slaveowners generally prefer greater property rights in people and more expansive enforcement of runaway slave laws, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

Because a property right interest in a forcibly enslaved human is an exercise in oppression that offends the  conscience. One might as well ask why murder or rape is wrong.

Sorry, that's all I got. In the end, sometimes I just gotta say, "that's wrong because we're moral humans."

That's the answer to your question too.

[Pointedstick]

If slaveowners generally prefer greater property rights in people and more expansive enforcement of runaway slave laws, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

Because a property right interest in a forcibly enslaved human is an exercise in oppression that offends the  conscience. One might as well ask why murder or rape is wrong.

Sorry, that's all I got. In the end, sometimes I just gotta say, "that's wrong because we're moral humans."

That's the answer to your question too.

It is immoral and offends the conscience that women can vote? Might not wanna say that too loudly.

[moda0306]

"My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl."

Context is everything.  You cannot free the slaves when the muppets are not ready for it!!!

  the quote is mostly  an adhominim attack on Jefferson, rich people, people who believe in freedom (us rabble) and not worth much since believing in freedom and holding slaves (as others have pointed out) are not mutually exclusive given the times he lived in..

i suppose some do elect Jefferson and others to "saint hood" but i would bet the vast majority primarily hold the "principles they spoke of and fought for" in high regard, and not just the men...

The attacks are more than a bit harsh.  I'll admit.  I guess sometimes I need a reminder to take ideas on their merits and respect the man who had the idea without getting teary eyed about a loss of purity of the past.  It just ain't that pure.  Let's focus on making the future better... with some ideas that worked from the past, but less blindly carrying those ideas forward with all the romanticism, American flag shirts, and tea party hats that go with it.

Similarly, it took true balls for Columbus to sail west.  He accomplished some neat stuff.  However, and to a degree much worse than Jefferson, he was a scumbag.  I try to respect the will for discovery while dissecting out the disregard for human life on such a disgusting level.

[Libertarian666]

Because a property right interest in a forcibly enslaved human is an exercise in oppression that offends the  conscience. One might as well ask why murder or rape is wrong.

Sorry, that's all I got. In the end, sometimes I just gotta say, "that's wrong because we're moral humans."

That's the answer to your question too.

It is immoral offends the conscience that women can vote? Might not wanna say that too loudly.

No, it offends the conscience that people are enslaved by the government and their production is forcibly taken to pay for "expansive government".

[Pointedstick]

No, it offends the conscience that people are enslaved by the government and their production is forcibly taken to pay for "expansive government".

I thought we were talking about women getting the right to vote. Plenty of men vote for expansive government, too. The percentage difference between the genders is pretty small.

[Libertarian666]

No, it offends the conscience that people are enslaved by the government and their production is forcibly taken to pay for "expansive government".

I thought we were talking about women getting the right to vote. Plenty of men vote for expansive government, too. The percentage difference between the genders is pretty small.

you said:

If women generally prefer greater liberalism and more expansive government, shouldn't a representative system of government respect those preferences? Why should their views be invalid?

My point, via reductio ad absurdum, is that such preferences are an affront to liberty and should therefore not be respected, just as slaveowners' preferences should not be respected.

[moda0306]

I think our sense of fairness tends to lead most of us to agree that if we are going to have this thing called government, the best way to have its running dictated is to have people vote for representatives to pass laws, but with several firewalls to prevent the most disgusting forms of "tyranny of the majority," corruption, and mob rule that can result.

What those firewalls built into the system are is what is the subject of so much debate.  Currently, we have 3 branches of government checking on each other, a Constitution limiting federal power against the individuals, and state and local governments that further check power.  How these things operate to check our collective will as wolves to "decide whats for dinner" is what we argue about so much.

To me, one completely inappropriate firewall is to limit voting to people of a certain race, gender, or property-owning status.  If we're going to have government, and going to use voting as a big piece of the mechanism to dictate what that role of government is, it is no "affront to freedom" to allow every adult to participate in that process.  It's in fact an affront to freedom to separate people from that process to simply arbitrarily give that power to others.

Heck, if wealth is to be used to measure your ability to vote, why do we choose to use the most obviously arbitrary form of wealth... Land?  To quote Obama, "You Didn't Build That!"  Talk about the definition of fascism...  Let people claim non-private assets as private, and then give these people, and only these people, the keys to an entity that protects "their" property, and has the authority to start wars, while all the losers of the game of musical resources don't get a say... oh, and will most likely get asked to fight those wars for the land-owners?

Now talk about a government worth owning an AR-15 to revolt against!

[Libertarian666]

Talk about the definition of fascism...  Let people claim non-private assets as private, and then give these people, and only these people, the keys to an entity that protects "their" property, and has the authority to start wars, while all the losers of the game of musical resources don't get a say... oh, and will most likely get asked to fight those wars for the land-owners?

Now talk about a government worth owning an AR-15 to revolt against!

That is an excellent description of the current situation in the US. Thank you.

[moda0306]

Talk about the definition of fascism...  Let people claim non-private assets as private, and then give these people, and only these people, the keys to an entity that protects "their" property, and has the authority to start wars, while all the losers of the game of musical resources don't get a say... oh, and will most likely get asked to fight those wars for the land-owners?

Now talk about a government worth owning an AR-15 to revolt against!

That is an excellent description of the current situation in the US. Thank you.

No, non-property owners can vote.  Also, there is no draft.

[Libertarian666]

Talk about the definition of fascism...  Let people claim non-private assets as private, and then give these people, and only these people, the keys to an entity that protects "their" property, and has the authority to start wars, while all the losers of the game of musical resources don't get a say... oh, and will most likely get asked to fight those wars for the land-owners?

Now talk about a government worth owning an AR-15 to revolt against!

That is an excellent description of the current situation in the US. Thank you.

No, non-property owners can vote.  Also, there is no draft.

Being able to have a 1/1,000,000 say in who your masters are does not make you a free man.
And it is true there is no draft... at the moment. But you still have to register at 18, just in case they decide to start it up again.