Comments on: Libertarian flash

By: Lawrence Krubner

Lawrence Krubner — Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:09:39 +0000

“I am a former (right) libertarian, and had to crawl my way out of it intellectually virtually by myself be cause I found few critics willing to take my concerns of liberty, self-ownership, ownership of my own labor, noncoersion, and intellectual consistency seriously.” I hope you can appreciate the irony of a libertarian complaining that they wanted help from others but did not get it. To be a libertarian is to believe, as Thatcher did, that society does not exist. If it doesn’t exist, then you have no reason to expect any help from the society of your fellow human beings. To be a libertarian then, is very hard, and you must accomplish everything on your own. If you crave help, compassion, or solidarity from your fellow humans, then you are no libertarian.

By: Lawrence Krubner

Lawrence Krubner — Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:04:58 +0000

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:39:13 +0000

Phenominal exchange so far guys, very informative. That said, I have a few questions for decnavda: 1) If I receive a gift, (life estate for instance) what if I improve on said property? For instance, you give me a 50 acre cleared field. I choose to utilize two acres for a house and barns and farm the remainder of the land. What happens upon your death? Is my farm taken from me? To whom is it given, and what about the house and barns? Were those not the fruit of my labor? 2) If the government is set up to redistribute wealth upon death, what checks and balances are going to be powerful enough to prevent favoritism and corruption at the government level? If this is left to a vote, what keeps the majority from taking my farm and leaving me without the means of production, simply because they see fit? What of intellectual labor/property? Do I not have the right to invent a means of production and receive some of the benefits of that production without having to labor at the machine myself? Can I write a book and trade that information or idea to many people therefore removing me from “labor”? For tomd: 1) From where do you get your assumption that if the government does not provide for children, disabled and elderly they will go unhelped? Children do not work, yet do not starve because their parents work harder, and provide for their life. The class of people unable to provide for themselves have lived for many centuries due to charitable people. I grant that not all people are charitable, but I also submit that the percentage of truly needy people is more than supportable by the generous. Along that line, one thing that is often overlooked in the free market is that market pressures affect generosity a great deal. People decide on what they buy based on four factors: 1) price. 2) quality. 3) convenience. 4) personal feeling or belief. People dont always buy the cheapest thing or the highest quality thing. There are times that people will go out of their way to not support a company or individual engaging in activity that is distasteful to them. Or they will go out of their way to support a company that is doing things they appreciate. Market forces can affect many things that reach beyond the strictly economic. There is not a need, as is so often assumed, for government safety nets and charity, the place for those things is with the individuals that make up the society, not some sort of disconnected concept of “everyone”. There is nothing that can be the responsibility of “everyone” without it being the responsibilty of individuals. Individuals have the right to accept responsibility or not, and face the consequences that result. Coersion by a government in such areas is not necessary. The presence of a government I believe is necessary, that need disappears only in a utopian world. The duties of that government, however, are very limited, and therefore the taxation should be as well, and should be based on services rendered, nothing more, nothing less.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:23:44 +0000

Let me try to put my argument another way. Let’s assume you are correct, and “You can only transfer what you own, which is the right to ownership of what you produced until you (the producer) die.” Suppose you produce something and we both agree that you have a legitimate right to own this produce until you die. You then choose to trade it to me for something I have produced. Then you die. According to your argument, it seems that society could rightfully expropriate the part of my property that you produced, because you are no longer alive. This would, of course, discourage any and all trade, because everyone would be worried that their trade partner would die and they would lose what they traded for.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:15:52 +0000

Which of the following do you disagree with? A. Self-ownership justifies a labor theory of property. I disagree with this, insofar as labor is not the only way to justly acquire property (others include trade and gifts). I think the Lockean arguments for initial acquisition are stronger than the Georgian/left-libertarian arguments for collective ownership. C. When the justification for property ownership ends, the ownership of the property should end. The justification for property ownership extends only so far as to justify the acquisition. Once the initial acquisition has been justified, ownership does not disappear when the original owner dies, because the person who received it through gift or trade is still alive. E. You can only transfer what you own, which is the right to ownership of what you produced until you (the producer) die. But yet you accept the transfer of complete, not just time-bound ownership, through exchange. How can this be so, if the original owner never had the right to transfer complete ownership? FMV is a well worn concept that has been applied in millions of lawsuits. But that is not the way it is used in economics. There is no objective fair market value - value is determined by supply and demand. The point is, the fair outcome is to maximize public revenue. But I don't believe this is the fair, or socially optimal outcome, and I think I've given good arguments why this is so.

By: decnavda

decnavda — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:25:46 +0000

FMV is a well worn concept that has been applied in millions of lawsuits. If I stretch, I can see using it as one heavily weighted factor in a facts and circumstanses test of intention re: exchange v. gift that other factors could rebut. Your arguments about the disincentive effect of inheritence taxes are good reasons we should probably not have an instant, 100% tax at death. The tax rate should be set at what could bring in the most taxes, recognising the disincentive effect. This could be 10%, 50%, 90%, or maybe just changing the form of the tax, such as considering the entire, or a %, to be a 30 year variable interest loan from the government. The point is, the fair outcome is to maximize public revenue. The difference principle is the standard here.

By: decnavda

decnavda — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:16:47 +0000

Micha- I complained about you reverting to natural rights because you preceeded it in the same paragraph with a reference to consequentialist and contractarian arguments. Which of the following do you disagree with? A. Self-ownership justifies a labor theory of property. B. The self ends at death. C. When the justification for property ownership ends, the ownership of the property should end. D. Therefore, you have a right to the fruits of your labor untill you die. E. You can only transfer what you own, which is the right to ownership of what you produced until you (the producer) die. Until now, i have repeated this several times with you just saying, but why? without locating the flaw in my argument.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:50:11 +0000

Well, I understand, in theory, the concept of temporal property ownership – what I don’t understand is its justification, outside of some mutually agreed-upon contract. In other words, I don’t understand why it should be the case that I cannot permanently transfer property ownership and have the ownership remain long after I am dead. By what standard can we say that if a father gives his son $1 million for a clay ash tray, this is a gift and not an exchange?” Fair Market Value But there is no such thing as fair market value for sentimental items. Further, fair market value is determined precisely by people’s willingness to pay – or more specificially, the seller who is willing to accept the lowest price and the buyer who is willing to pay the highest price. There is no “objective” fair market value – any transaction that occurs on the market is, by definition, the fair market value of the object in question. Now you have reverted to natural rights. “It’s what the father wants!” Where’s the appeal to the greater good or fairness? I thought we were discussing natural rights. If you want to discuss other methods of inquiry, one might criticize inheritence taxes on the grounds that, if I know my inheritence will be confiscated when I die, I will make sure to die with zero inheritence. This is not socially beneficial – the property is not being put to its most efficient uses. Further, it discourages work past a certain point. Once I’ve earned enough money to satisfy my needs and desires for the rest of my life, I might continue working in order to help others. But if I know that any gifts and inheritance will simply be confiscated when I die, I no longer have this incentive to continue working. This is also not socially beneficial.

By: decnavda

decnavda — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:23:36 +0000

First let me warn that the life estate theory I describe is not official Georgism. Single-Taxes reject inherientence taxes for most of the reasons you describe, although Henry George himself did endorse a inherientence taxes. It’s a matter of contention. Second, I can not explain temporal property ownership more than I have. Go to a law school and buy a copy of the first-year Property text. “I also don’t see how a consequentialist or contractarian theory could adequately distinguish between a gift and an exchange. By what standard can we say that if a father gives his son $1 million for a clay ash tray, this is a gift and not an exchange?” Fair Market Value “Perhaps the father truly values (for sentimental reasons) this ash tray at such a high price.” Now you have reverted to natural rights. “It’s what the father wants!” Where’s the appeal to the greater good or fairness? “what is the point of owning property if you can’t do anything with it?” Again, I would say you can do ANYTHING with it as long as you are alive (and do not violate the rights of others). I’m just considering property in four dimentions rather than three.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:06:27 +0000

Decnavda, Yes, I honestly don’t understand this theory of life estate. I don’t see why the ownership of property does not also include the right to trade or give away that property to others. That is the very essence of ownership – control of the property. Just as self ownership implies control over one’s self, to do with as one pleases, so too property ownersip implies control over property to use and transfer as one pleases. I also don’t see how a consequentialist or contractarian theory could adequately distinguish between a gift and an exchange. By what standard can we say that if a father gives his son $1 million for a clay ash tray, this is a gift and not an exchange? Perhaps the father truly values (for sentimental reasons) this ash tray at such a high price. If Georgism allows one to trade away the fruits of one’s labor for the fruits of other people’s labor, then I don’t see why it should treat gifts differently. And if Georgism doesn’t allow this, than Georgism doesn’t seem any different than communism – what is the point of owning property if you can’t do anything with it?

By: decnavda

decnavda — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:46:39 +0000

“Suppose I give my son a million dollars for a clay ash tray he made for me. Is this a gift or an exchange?” The IRS does this all the time. Again, I admit this is difficult from a natural rights perspective, but from a consequentialist perspective it works pretty well.

By: decnavda

decnavda — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:43:26 +0000

Micha- Really, is a life estate so difficult to understand? They have existed in real estate for the entirety of English common law and opperate exactly as I have described. You may disagree with it, but it hardly a bizarre concept. To repeat my justification. You own your self. Self ownership gives you a right to own the fruits of your labor. Your self ends at death. There is no longer a self to own Since self-ownership is the basis for property ownership, the extention of your self extinguishes all other property rights. You therefor have a life interest in the fruits of your labor, which is based on your own life. That is all you own, it is all you transfer. The Georgist production theory is that you work to produce what you use, and that your demands for what you plan to buy with you the product of your labor is what causes those things to be produced. As political ecconomy, I think this is sound. From a natural rights framework, I admit it is hard to justify a differrence in types of voluntary transfers. As a contractarian, I am happy to have someone enjoying as much wealth as they added to the general pot, but I am not happy with people living off of wealth at the bequest of the dead. The critique of Georgism is a critique of Single-Taxers, which are becoming more and more rare among George’s admirers. Even there, the description of Single-Taxing and its results is even more unfairly distopian than the single-taxer’s desciptions are nievely uptoian. For one example, the author of the critique claims that having the government lease land would result in either no permanent structures, or would result in the exact same circumstances with the govenrment not recieving significant revenues from the land leases. He has apparently never heard of Hong Kong. While Hong Kong may show the Sngle Tax to be no panacea, it is certainly known for having lower taxes than normal and fairly tall buildings.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:49:06 +0000

One more thing: if you do believe in some fundamental difference between exchange and gifts, how do you determine which is which? Suppose I give my son a million dollars for a clay ash tray he made for me. Is this a gift or an exchange?

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:45:42 +0000

Wrong, wrong, wrong This is why I include the life estate in real estate example. You can tranfer your rights, but only what you own, and all you own is the property while you are alive, so that is all you can transfer. I’m confused. You say that you can transfer rights under your theory. Ok, lets say you work real hard and earn something. Then you trade or give it to me. I now have a property right. You die. But I am still alive. I have the same property right you had before you traded/gave it to me. Therefore, shouldn’t I still have this property right even after you die, as long as I remain alive? In other words, if property rights transfer as you say they do, why do they depend on the life of the original owner and not on the lives of the later owners? Note that under Georgist theory, what you by in the market is essentially the product of your labor, so your estate in property aquired through market exchange is based on YOUR life, not the life of whomever actually made it. But this does not apply to gifts. But why? I am trying to understand why you think exchange is fundamentally different than gifts. Also, here is a pretty good critique of Georgism, if you’re interested.

By: decnavda

decnavda — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:17:48 +0000

“You are essentially claiming that an individual right to the fruits of one’s own labor does not include the right to tranfer property rights.” Wrong, wrong, wrong This is why I include the life estate in real estate example. You can tranfer your rights, but only what you own, and all you own is the property while you are alive, so that is all you can transfer. Note that under Georgist theory, what you by in the market is essentially the product of your labor, so your estate in property aquired through market exchange is based on YOUR life, not the life of whomever actually made it. But this does not apply to gifts.