Left-Libertarianism, a socialist prof and a new world view

[AlexGrant]

TL;DR:

1) Left Libertarians (Otsuka) believe we must seperate right to self VS right to own things. How does Ayn Rand bridge this gap?

2) Liberalism class has prof who spouts socialism without justifying it, calls Ayn Rand a whack job.

3) I thought dangerously and sneakily spreading socialism in schools/universities was conspiracy theory-ish, world flipped upside-down upon experiencing it.

Hello all,

I have several issues that I'd love to have some help with. All of these issues are related to a fourth year 'Liberalism' class I am taking in University; I don't think it is worth creating more than one thread, but there is definitely a lot ot be discussed.

The description of the class is as follows:

Liberalism takes a variety of forms and includes many topics including the rule of law, limited government, the free exchange of goods, entitlement to property, the self, and individual rights. It's philosophical and political assumptions provide the intellectual context within which it's account of the individual, it's vision of the community and it's preferred allocation of resources will be.

I was incredibly excited to take this class, and this excitement was fed by the first few classes where we got off to a decent start on Locke. It was all downhill from there. The part of the description that I failed to notice was the 'preferred allocation of resouces'. Essentially, we have spent the past three months discussing which method of dolling out income, resources, etc. is best, without ever covering why any of them is justified. The thinkers we have covered so far are: Rawls (9 hours of him), Dworkin, Cohen, Frankfurt, Parfit, Anderson and last week we were introduced to Nozick for, as far as I can tell, the sole purpose of critiquing him via socialism and denouncing free market capitalism. (I'm aware that there is plenty else wrong with Nozick)

Finally, this week, we were presented with a reason for WHY socialism is justified at all (a little late). At the start of this weeks class, we were able to critique 'libertarianism' thanks to Nozick and, my professor went so far as to say, "whack job libertarians like Ayn Rand". I took this quite personally, as I had mentiond Ayn Rand to him once recently after class and he pretty much just dismissed what I had to say, and said to wait for the critique of libertarianism.

The critique which intrigued me, and I would like your opinion on, is that of the 'left-libertarian'. They believe that there must be a seperation between 'ownership of self' and 'ownership of things'. They believe in the ownership of self part, but not in all of the aspects of owning 'things'. The prof brought up the example of owning a dog: you don't have the natural right to do all the things that are wrapped up in the 'idea' of 'owning' something (i.e. destroy it, mistreat it). I think this was an appeal to emotion in the class, because it is so hard to imagine someone mistreating a nice little puppy. They go on to ask how is it that a very talented athlete not only has the right to his body but all the money he can make and the power that comes with it?

Now as far as I know, Ayn Rand doesn't get into this seperation of rights, because it doesn't really exist. I mean it's addressed in VoS, man's rights, in like 2 paragraphs because it seems so obvious. Man has right to self, derived from that man has right to what he produces. What I'm wondering is: is there any more to this? Is there a better argument available that will know this 'left-libertarian' idea off it's feet?

I have a paper coming up for this class and I think I will focus on this. We are allowed to go well beyond the constraints of the literature in class (thank goodness), so I'm thinking of bringing Ayn Rand into the picture, but I want to do it properly and accurately. Any help here is greatly appreciated.

Also I get to comment on this prof. at the end of the year and I think I will write up a nice little page about what socialist trash this class is (put more academically of course). It's a very intimidating class for me, I mean I have these ideas (I'm only a student of objectivist I'd say, but I'm trying) that nobody in the class seems to agree with, but more importantly they don't even want to discuss it; they simply say "that isn't really covered by nozick/rawls/whoever we're working on, so it's not valid. Very frustrating.

To me, all of this stuff about 'spreading the evil of socialism in the schools/universities' seemed very conspiracy theory-ish. It's a total mind-trip to see this stuff in action and I feel very lonely in most of my classes having noticed it. I have a feeling this is a natural process in accepting Objectivism into my life.

Thanks all! Sorry for the wall of text, I had to get it all out. Hopefully some of you are having a slow day and care enough to read it all!

[Grames]

The critique which intrigued me, and I would like your opinion on, is that of the 'left-libertarian'. They believe that there must be a seperation between 'ownership of self' and 'ownership of things'. They believe in the ownership of self part, but not in all of the aspects of owning 'things'. The prof brought up the example of owning a dog: you don't have the natural right to do all the things that are wrapped up in the 'idea' of 'owning' something (i.e. destroy it, mistreat it). I think this was an appeal to emotion in the class, because it is so hard to imagine someone mistreating a nice little puppy. They go on to ask how is it that a very talented athlete not only has the right to his body but all the money he can make and the power that comes with it?

Now as far as I know, Ayn Rand doesn't get into this seperation of rights, because it doesn't really exist. I mean it's addressed in VoS, man's rights, in like 2 paragraphs because it seems so obvious. Man has right to self, derived from that man has right to what he produces. What I'm wondering is: is there any more to this? Is there a better argument available that will know this 'left-libertarian' idea off it's feet?

Stolen concept. Ownership cannot apply to self, who is doing the owning? Self is logically prior to owning anything. So their concession on ownership of self is meaningless and so-called 'left-libertarians' don't believe in ownership at all.

The concept of a "right" pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible, Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[Zip]

Well if your prof has a BMW then he should let you use it because you're a poor student and you don't have one and he shouldn't be permitted to own it when you don't have one....

Fucking champagne socialists. Worst fucking kind, at least the Soviet Serf believing in and toiling away for the good of the USSR wasn't a fucking hypocrite when he was doing it.

[Ordr]

Fucking champagne socialists. Worst fucking kind, at least the Soviet Serf believing in and toiling away for the good of the USSR wasn't a fucking hypocrite when he was doing it.

Can I use this as my signature?

[Zip]

Can I use this as my signature?

Be my guest.

[Ordr]

Thanks

[AlexGrant]

Stolen concept. Ownership cannot apply to self, who is doing the owning? Self is logically prior to owning anything. So their concession on ownership of self is meaningless and so-called 'left-libertarians' don't believe in ownership at all.

Sorry Grames, perhaps I shouldn't have used the words 'own' or 'ownership'. These left-libertarians (and I suspect my prof) believe in individual rights, so far as it only involves you and your body. So you can smoke marijuana, not wear a seat belt; average negative rights libertarian stuff. However, they do not believe that, from this, you are able to derive the rights to what you produce. More specfically, you don't have the right to do whatever you want with anything you buy, create, trade for, etc.

Edited March 21, 2009 by AlexGrant

[AlexGrant]

So I found this in another section of VoS, Monument Builders:

"Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life."

What I think almost my entire class would argue is: at a certain point, some men no longer need 100% of their produced goods to sustain their lives; what is the issue with taking 1% of that and giving it to people who cannot sustain their life for whatever reason.

Is this just arguing pragmatism over principle? Is it just this idea that has been beat into our heads that some people have SO much that it only seems right to give some to people who have nothing (especially 'at no fault of their own')?

I guess it isn't about whether or not they need it at that particular time. It comes down to whether they have the right to it. Right?

[bluey]

"Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life."

What I think almost my entire class would argue is: at a certain point, some men no longer need 100% of their produced goods to sustain their lives; what is the issue with taking 1% of that and giving it to people who cannot sustain their life for whatever reason.

I hear this argument a lot. The question is, who has a right to take it from him? You have a right to your own production not because you need every material item you produce, but because you need the mind that produced it and also because you are the only one who can decide what you, personally, "need" - no one else has a right to decide that for you. Humans "need" extraordinarily little to simply survive, is anything above that up for grabs? By whose right?

[Grames]

Sorry Grames, perhaps I shouldn't have used the words 'own' or 'ownership'. These left-libertarians (and I suspect my prof) believe in individual rights, so far as it only involves you and your body. So you can smoke marijuana, not wear a seat belt; average negative rights libertarian stuff. However, they do not believe that, from this, you are able to derive the rights to what you produce. More specfically, you don't have the right to do whatever you want with anything you buy, create, trade for, etc.

The positive right to the product of your labor does not and cannot be derived from negative rights. All rights derive from the same source, your own life. In combination with the fact that you are a material being with material desires, your right to your own life gives you the right to gain and dispose of material values.

Negative rights are derivative from positive rights to act. What use is right to smoke marijuana if you don't have the right to possess marijuana? Of what use is a right to not wear a seat belt if I don't have a right to own a car?

The idea that your life ends at the furthest extent of your fingertips is perhaps a philosophy appropriate for an animal, but not for human beings. Property is an extension of a person's mind and body, and therefore of a person's life.

What I think almost my entire class would argue is: at a certain point, some men no longer need 100% of their produced goods to sustain their lives; what is the issue with taking 1% of that and giving it to people who cannot sustain their life for whatever reason.

Is this just arguing pragmatism over principle? Is it just this idea that has been beat into our heads that some people have SO much that it only seems right to give some to people who have nothing (especially 'at no fault of their own')?

I guess it isn't about whether or not they need it at that particular time. It comes down to whether they have the right to it. Right?

Rights are absolute or they are not rights. The inability to think in principle is the pragmatist mentality and is really what you are up against here. Despite the appearance that you are having an argument about ethics and politics, it is in fact a clash over epistemology.

[Marc K.]

The description of the class is as follows:

Liberalism takes a variety of forms and includes many topics including the rule of law, limited government, the free exchange of goods, entitlement to property, the self, and individual rights. It's philosophical and political assumptions provide the intellectual context within which it's account of the individual, it's vision of the community and it's preferred allocation of resources will be.

[...] we got off to a decent start on Locke. It was all downhill from there. The part of the description that I failed to notice was the 'preferred allocation of resouces'. Essentially, we have spent the past three months discussing which method of dolling out income, resources, etc. is best, without ever covering why any of them is justified.

Well they sucked you in by dangling the (presumably good and proper) topics first in the description. Once you are in that mindset then they throw "vision of the community" at you, which could almost seem valid if you are talking about the vision of a free society in which everybody acts according to the judgement of their own mind, but now you know is usually a tip-off that the professor is a communist. But combining "vision of the community" with "preferred allocation of resources" should engage your automatic gag reflex. "Vision of the community" brings the image of Hitler or Marx or Mao to my mind immediately. "Preferred allocation of resources" implies all at once that resources are limited and that therefore government interference is required so that selfish interests don't spoil the communist vision. Of course all of this last negates everything espoused in the first sentence of the description.

The professor's error can probably be exposed by asking him for his definition of Individual Rights. The attributes subsumed by the concept of Individual Rights are many and you can find most of them here in the Ayn Rand Lexicon, here:

Individual Rights

If you want to hear it directly from Ayn Rand's mouth listen to this excellent interview: The Nature of Rights from the Ayn Rand Multimedia Library at ARI.

Probably the professor's definition will contradict something in this one: "Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival." -- Ayn Rand (taken out of the Lexicon from "For the New Intellectual")

Man must survive by the effort of his own mind, therefore he must have title to the fruits of his mind, if he doesn't, then he cannot survive. This is the justification for property rights.

Finally, this week, we were presented with a reason for WHY socialism is justified at all (a little late).

The critique which intrigued me, and I would like your opinion on, is that of the 'left-libertarian'. They believe that there must be a seperation between 'ownership of self' and 'ownership of things'. They believe in the ownership of self part, but not in all of the aspects of owning 'things'. The prof brought up the example of owning a dog: you don't have the natural right to do all the things that are wrapped up in the 'idea' of 'owning' something (i.e. destroy it, mistreat it). I think this was an appeal to emotion in the class, because it is so hard to imagine someone mistreating a nice little puppy. They go on to ask how is it that a very talented athlete not only has the right to his body but all the money he can make and the power that comes with it?

I don't see a justification at all, just a statement fueled by an appeal to emotion. Is this the whole of the justification?

Ownership of self is essentially the right to life and has nothing to do with property. So this professor doesn't believe in the concept of property at all?

You could get away from animals and ask him if he believes one should be allowed to own a house or food or a car and then ask him if he owns any of these things. Ask him how he came to own these things, what is it that makes him the owner and not someone else and if he owns things why shouldn't an athlete own things?

But there is a more fundamental issue with his conception of property and ownership illustrated by the puppy example and his assertion that an owner would want to destroy or mistreat his property. Typically this is not how someone treats their property. The only way to own something is to put effort into acquiring or creating it, this means you value it and you usually don't destroy something you value.

Now either you or he might bring up the example of beef cattle. You might bring it up just to make sure that he thinks we ought to be allowed to kill and eat beef. He might bring it up as an example of property that one does destroy but you don't destroy it. You treat it very well so that someone else might value it enough to buy it from you.

Another strategy typical of a marxist is his equivocation of economic power with political power. The only power the athlete has is to buy something that someone else is willing to sell, he cannot force anyone to sell him anything. Political power is the power of force and is the sole domain of the government. Economic power is the freedom to trade voluntarily. Political power is the power of a gun.

Now as far as I know, Ayn Rand doesn't get into this seperation of rights, because it doesn't really exist. I mean it's addressed in VoS, man's rights, in like 2 paragraphs because it seems so obvious. Man has right to self, derived from that man has right to what he produces. What I'm wondering is: is there any more to this? Is there a better argument available that will know this 'left-libertarian' idea off it's feet?

Read all of the entries in the Lexicon that I cited. If you ask them for a definition of rights I think you'll find it to be self contradictory. If man does not have the right to the product of his effort, then he has no way to support his life which defeats all of his other rights.

I have a paper coming up for this class and I think I will focus on this. We are allowed to go well beyond the constraints of the literature in class (thank goodness), so I'm thinking of bringing Ayn Rand into the picture, but I want to do it properly and accurately. Any help here is greatly appreciated.

Feel free to ask more questions.

Also I get to comment on this prof. at the end of the year and I think I will write up a nice little page about what socialist trash this class is (put more academically of course). It's a very intimidating class for me, I mean I have these ideas (I'm only a student of objectivist I'd say, but I'm trying) that nobody in the class seems to agree with, but more importantly they don't even want to discuss it; they simply say "that isn't really covered by nozick/rawls/whoever we're working on, so it's not valid. Very frustrating.

You could ask them if they think the founding fathers were right or wrong.

[RachelColoredGlasses]

If it isn't too redundant, here is how I'd put it:

Is it okay for me to grab a rabbit, if I can catch it, and eat it? Is it okay for me to grab some flammable materials and cause them to ignite, and then roast the rabbit before eating it? It is okay for me to harvest materials to fashion a shelter? What about carving a lute? Must I ask permission to make an agreement with someone to play him a song if he gives me some of his rabbit?

The concept of rights is derived from the need to take specific actions in order to live and the observation that men must use persuasion when dealing with other men. Private property, or ownership, is nothing more than an extension of the recognition that I can/must use my own ingenuity and effort to exploit nature and can/must make agreements with other men to more effectively dispose of my thoughts and actions.

A car, or a house, or a computer, or a side of beef - these are nothing more than highly complex derivatives of various men putting their minds and bodies to work. One man must stoop to plant seed. Another must swing a pick to strike a vein of ore. And a third must secure their cooperation in exchange for coordinating their efforts to maximum effect.

The failure to accept property rights as a logical extension of the right to life, i.e. to exploit nature to meet my own needs, is a declaration that thoughts and actions have no purpose. The thief (or socialist) is reneging on his agreement to exchange his labor (including creativity) for the labor of others. I take actions, like hunting, in order to achieve certain consequences, like getting a rabbit for stew. If I knew that hunting would not result in putting a rabbit on my plate, or that any given action would result only in supporting someone else's goals, I would have no life of my own. My thoughts would be disconnected from my actions. And my actions would be meaningless. (Actually, if I knew that my hunting was no longer resulting in putting rabbits on my plate, I'd figure out why it wasn't working. I surmise that it would result in an arrow through someone's throat. It's dangerous to mess with man!)

Boiled down, it's all only thoughts and actions - even the puppy that some bastard suggests he wants to torture (since the breed had to be domesticated and hybridized and the individual animals had to be fostered, etc.). Too bad he can't see the magnificent beauty of the system built from this simple identification.

Rachel

P.S.

There is no difference in principle between taking everything from a man and taking only 1% from him. Because men must be dealt with by persuasion, i.e. by securing voluntary cooperation, any violation of that is total. Either I am cooperating or I am not. Either we have reached an agreement or we have not.

Look at it this way: Slaves are kept in order to harvest their labor. Technically, they produce more than they actually need in order to make it from day to day, at least physically. This is evidenced by the fact that their owners become quite wealthy. That wealth is coming from somewhere, and the owners surely aren't producing it! Some fraction of the productive effort of the slaves more than 1% is being harvested, especially if all they have left is food for themselves and their shelters. What's wrong with that situation? Why exactly do men regard such a practice as wrong? How does a reduction of the magnitude of the harvest tto a mere 1% justify it?

Spreading the taking around so that everyone's production is harvested doesn't make it fair. It only turns everyone into a slave of everyone else. (And, insidiously, it makes it that much more difficult for common men to recognize their predicament. One advantage of the literal slave is that at least he knows he's a slave. When he goes to the slaughter, it won't be as a lamb. That can't be said of the socialist.)