Human Action disputed my claim. Rather than further derail that other thread, I figured it would be better to bring the debate to a new thread.
So the topic is: Do libertarians place property rights above other values like voluntary association, political freedom, and individual liberty?
Here is my questions for Human Action and any other libertarians who want to participate.
A man owns a business. The employees in that business decide to form a union. The owner doesn’t like unions and says he will fire any employee that belongs to a union. The principle of voluntary association would say the employees can join a union and the owner can’t coerce them by threatening to fire them if they do. The principle of property ownership would say that the man owns the business and he can fire anyone he wants to for whatever reason he wants. Which side do you agree with?
Another man owns a different business. This man is an ardent supporter of a candidate in an upcoming election. He says any of his employees who fail to support the candidate he likes or who show any support for an opposing candidate will be fired. The principle of political freedom would say the employees can support any candidate they choose and the owner can’t coerce them by threatening to fire them if they disagree with his choice. The principle of property ownership would again say that the man owns the business and he can fire anyone he wants to for whatever reason he wants. Which side do you agree with?
Yet another man owns a piece of property. A group of hikers are traveling along and they want to walk through the man’s property. They assure him they will not take anything from his property or cause any damage. They just want to travel across it. But the man doesn’t want anyone to trespass on his property at all. The principle of individual liberty would say the hikers can travel anywhere they choose as long as they’re not harming anyone by doing so. The principle of property ownership would again say that the man owns the land and he can deny anyone access to it for whatever reason he wants. Which side do you agree with?
Well, um…I’d have to go with ‘it varies’. Libertarians aren’t, as far as I know, in complete lock-step on every issue down the line. Your question is like asking if all socialists value central planning over collectivization of all property and the means of production. They are both aspects of the same thought process, and different socialists are going to put more emphasis on different things depending on their individual (heh) goals.
Out of curiosity, what do you base your assertion that all libertarians value property rights over everything else?
Um…both are wrong. The employees can, indeed, form a union. Nothing stops them, and many libertarians would be all for it. Forming a union isn’t really a voluntary association as I’d use the term, but I don’t see a problem. If they could then use that union to leverage better working conditions or salary, then more power to them. But nothing prevents the owner from firing people who do so if he can hire people who won’t. It has nothing to do with property rights, but simply the same freedom that the workers have to form that union in the first place.
I’d probably lean towards the workers on this one, but then I’m not a true libertarian. However, my question would be, how does the owner know which candidate the workers support? Does he go into the voting booth with them? Does he force them to make campaign contributions out of their own pocket? If the answer to either of those is ‘yes’, then the workers are free to take their skills and labor elsewhere…and in a libertarian society, information would be freely distributed, so everyone would (in theory) know what this guy was doing. Let me ask you something…if you knew that there was a business owner who did this in your town or city, would you patronize his business? Or would you organize a perfectly legal protest and boycott of his business? I know which one I’d do, even if the guy supported my candidate or party (assuming I had one).
Um…where do you get that the ‘principle of individual liberty would say the hikers can travel anywhere they choose’?? Do you think that if I want to travel through, oh, say the Pentagon or the White House…or Area 51 or a nuclear reactor…that I can do that just because I say I won’t cause any harm? Can I just walk right into your house today without your permission because I promise to do no harm? Anyone’s house, apartment or dwelling? Any time?
I think a strict libertarian would say that he or she* most strongly values the protection of political freedom and voluntary association against infringement by the government, and that infringement upon those values by a private employer raises less concern. It’s easier to find another employer than it is another government, after all, and the government has a greater range of coercive tools at its disposal.
That’s like saying that because some liberals on the SDMB said something, that means all liberals are in lock step. Surly you can see how silly that is…right?
Note that as to point 2, we have just seen from the Mozilla controversy that a wide swath of people take the side of property interests over political freedom. Embrace of that principle extends well beyond just libertarians.
No, ownership is a factor here. The owner can fire the workers. The workers can’t fire the owner. So we can’t pretend everyone here has equal freedom to act and who owns property is immaterial. You have to include ownership in order to give an honest answer.
Don’t argue the premises. Just assume the owner has some reliable way to determine how people voted and the property is just a normal piece of land.
You’ve constructed situations where it appears that the antagonists aren’t free to associate, or choose their own candidate, or be “free”, but they are. In other words, the antagonists can retain their rights without infringing on the owner’s and reverse. So there really isn’t a dilemma here. I think in order to make a test you need to have the same individual being forced to make a choice between which of his rights are more important, and if that person seems real enough you can call him a libertarian if you like. The semantic argument about what ‘libertarianism’ means isn’t really that interesting, imo.
XT, you can answer the questions if you choose. Or you can choose not to answer them. But you’re not going to convince me I’m wrong to ask them.
I’ve stated my position quite openly. I think libertarians place property rights above other values. And I’ve presented three scenarios in which a person has to make a choice between property rights and some other value. And now I want to see how libertarians respond.
I disagree that ownership is the over riding factor here. The workers can’t fire the owner, now, but they CAN simply take their labor and skills elsewhere. Having equal freedom does not equal equality in all things. I’m not equal to Bill Gates, as I don’t have billions of dollars (sadly). But if I work for Microsoft and Gates (or Nadella) gives me the shaft, I have the freedom to take my skills and labor to Sun or Apple, if they are interested. Anything else would be an infringement on the freedom and rights of the owner, which would be repugnant to a libertarian.
What’s a ‘normal piece of land’? If I own it, then certainly that is about property rights…and my right to determine who uses it and for what purpose, including simply wanting to traipse across. If it’s common (i.e. public) land, then that’s another matter. If it’s allowing access to public/common land, than that’s yet another issue.
As for the voting thing, again, the workers are free to take their labor elsewhere. If I, an network engineer for Liberal IT Solutions, LLC am told that I WILL support David Kucinich for President, then I need some additional details. I have zero intention of doing so, and if I’m required to make a campaign donation out of my own funds then I’m going to walk. If I’m required to go to see Kucinich at a rally on my own dime then I’m going to walk. If the boss says I have to vote for Kucinich, then I might nod and then vote for whoever I want too…and if I’m hassled about it, then I’ll walk. That’s the freedom I have. The other freedom I have is to pit the guy/company on a message board like this, and whine and complain about him/them on Facebook and Tweet the hell out of him/them on Twitter, and to otherwise get the word out and be as big a pain in the ass as I want to be…and to take my skills and labor elsewhere.
I DID answer them…and I explained why you are wrong. What you do with that is your lookout, but I’ll drop it at this point. I don’t think there are many actual libertarians on this board, just people who lean more toward a libertarian outlook. but you asked Human Action some questions so I’ll let him answer. Sam Stone would be a good one, if he chooses to look into this thread…or John Mace.
I disagree, and I think that your interpretation of what is or isn’t property rights are flawed…and thus, your questions, which you basically oriented to that specifically don’t really demonstrate anything about what libertarians value most or don’t value most. But I’ll let the libertarians respond, since you didn’t like nor really respond to my own answers.
I think a libertarian would probably say that the workers are still free to voluntarily organize, even if it costs them their job. There is, I suppose, a measure of freedom in such action. Libertarians do, however, tend to downplay or ignore the obvious problem your scenarios pose, primarily because the solution is government intervention in corporate affairs, which is the anathema to their philosophy.
Your premises are flawed. In #1 you make an assumption that based on some nebulous principal a business owner can’t fire people. A libertarian would say that unless there is a contract that specifies as such employment is not a given.
This applies to #2 as well.
#3 assumes there is no ability for someone to assert a property interest in restricting access to all comers. For some reason you ascribe an individual liberty interest to the hikers but not to the property owners.
Pretty lopsided overall. Perhaps you can concoct more apt examples.
Why should someone try and prove or disprove something you’ve made no effort to explain? On what basis do you make the claim that “The cornerstone of libertarianism is property rights.”? If you just want a factual answer, then why not post in GQ? As it is, you’re making a claim in GD based on… AFAICT, nothing.
I don’t see this at all. He asked a question. A group of hikers would like to cross a section of private property. It will shorten their trip. It would be convenient to them. Can the property owner deny them passage?
Instead of complaining about the question, why not simply answer it? In a Libertarian world, just as in our world, yes, the property owner can deny passage. He can tell the nice hikers, “Sorry, but this is my land, and I do not consent to your entering it. You have to go back or go around.”
The question only really gets interesting if one of the hikers is injured, and thus has a meaningful and urgent need to cross the land. Then you get into a real conflict of valid social values.
As asked, the question is easy to answer. I don’t see why you feel a need to reject it.
(“What’s the square root of 17?” “I reject the bias inherent in the question.”)
Because it is nonsensical. It mischaracterizes the concept of individual liberty (that a person has a right to travel across someone else’s land against their wishes) and simultaneously denies this right to the property owner.
As presented the properry owner can deny passage without any impact to individual liberty of the hikers because they would never enjoy this liberty in the first place. Easily answered and dismissed.
If someone asks you an extremely clearcut question, will you give a yes/no answer, or will you make non-specific objections, apparently fearful that any answer will be held against you?
BTW, I consider myself a pragmatic centrist and don’t have clear philosophic answers to these questions. For the workers versus employer, I’d tend to side with the underdog – usually the workers, but if it was a monopolistic union versus small employers, I might side with the employers.
Do you think that if I want to travel through, oh, say the Pentagon or the White House…or Area 51 or a nuclear reactor…that I can do that just because I say I won’t cause any harm? Can I just walk right into your house today without your permission because I promise to do no harm? Anyone’s house, apartment or dwelling? Any time?
