And some human beings don't have a concept of 'self-ownership' and think slavery is justified.
And consequentialism also leads me to believe that defending property rights so far as to allow people to deny food to the starving, is not a good idea.
(And to be honest, to me the libertarian notion of "self-ownership" feels like a reverse-reasoning epicycle to try and base everything on property rights. I'm not sure it even makes sense: Surely if you own yourself you should be allowed to sell yourself?)
So slavery would be okay if the people who were enslaved could be protected from abuse whilst enslaved?
Think carefully about the implications of your philosophy.
>And consequentialism also leads me to believe that defending property rights so far as to allow people to deny food to the starving, is not a good idea.
You don't have a right to live by robbing others. Even if you don't care about the moral reasons for this, you must see how in the long run, a legal system that allows those with low resources to plunder those with high resources, deteriorates the incentives that sustain the economy, leading to far more death.
>(And to be honest, to me the libertarian notion of "self-ownership" feels like a reverse-reasoning epicycle to try and base everything on property rights.
If the term "self-ownership" rubs you the wrong way (because the concept of ownership has been stigmatized by socialist ideology), the libertarian notion could be reversed, and it would be equally valid. Unclaimed natural resources that are appropriated and turned into property become part of a person. They are us. So to violate someone's property is to violate their person.
>I'm not sure it even makes sense: Surely if you own yourself you should be allowed to sell yourself?)
I would argue you have no moral right to sell yourself into slavery, because the person you are five years from now is in some respects a different person, who no one else, even their past self, has a right to sell into slavery.
I think if some form of slavery could be proven to lead to better outcomes for all involved, it would be a good thing. I just don't think such a system is possible.
>you must see how in the long run, a legal system that allows those with low resources to plunder those with high resources, deteriorates the incentives that sustain the economy, leading to far more death.
Actually, what I see is that in societies with lower taxes, inequality increases slowly over time leading to inefficiency, poverty and crime.
>I would argue you have no moral right to sell yourself into slavery, because the person you are five years from now is in some respects a different person, who no one else, even their past self, has a right to sell into slavery.
Okay, that's a reasonable argument, but it still feels like an unnecessary contortion to me.
Why not just say "slavery is bad because it denies individual freedom"? That seems far more like a position based in liberty. Whereas trying to base everything in property rights just feels like an exercise in oversimplification.
(Or if I'm feeling excessively cynical, it feels like an attempt to intertwine property rights into the philosophy so deeply that they can't be argued with directly.)
What's a good outcome is subjective. For the slave, it cannot be better to be enslaved. For someone else, it may be very well be. That is why rights are important. Like I said, your moral framework is essentially sociopathic in its willingness to violate others rights. You're even willing to enslave others given the right circumstances.
>Actually, what I see is that in societies with lower taxes, inequality increases slowly over time leading to inefficiency, poverty and crime.
The US doesn't have lower taxes though. The countries that have the lowest taxes while still protecting private property rights have seen massive gains in wages and life expectancy over the last 60 years: Hong Kong and Singapore.
The countries that have increasingly adopted social democracy have seen wage growth stagnate.
Look at the US for example. The US has tried massively increasing social welfare spending since 1972:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-...
Annual spending growth on various components of social welfare spending (1972 - 2011):
>Pensions and retirement: 4.4%
>Healthcare: 5.7%
>Welfare: 4.1%
Annual economic growth over the time frame:
>2.7%
The only thing it has to show for giving people more "free money" to spend is a higher trade deficit, stagnant wage growth, and, I would argue, an explosion in the amount of single parenthood:
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/500-rise-in-single-parenthood-fu...
The story has largely been the same in Europe, with the scale of forcible income redistribution growing, concurrent with increasing stagnation of wage growth.
>Why not just say "slavery is bad because it denies individual freedom"?
Because if the person is selling themselves into slavery, you have to ask how that is a denial of individual freedom. That is what I've attempted to answer.
>That seems far more like a position based in liberty. Whereas trying to base everything in property rights just feels like an exercise in oversimplification.
You cannot have a definition of liberty unless you define what people have a right to (their person and property).
The premise was if it were better for all involved. I've already said I don't think that's possible, and it sounds like you agree.
>You're even willing to enslave others given the right circumstances.
The right circumstances being that it's better for all involved yes. I would consider it immoral to deny people an option that makes them better off.
>The countries that have increasingly adopted social democracy have seen wage growth stagnate.
I think this has also corresponded with an increase in wealth inequality, largely as a result of increased importance of capital in wealth creation in those countries.
But I'm less confident here. Maybe you're right that lower taxes are better for the economy. My main point (although less so in this particular thread) is that arguments for property rights should be based on their positive outcomes for society, not a system of morals that denies economic criticism.
"Tax is theft" is an unassailable moral position.
"Countries with lower taxes do better" is an actual argument.
How could any institution that denies a party the freedom to choose (e.g. slavery) be better for all involved. Maybe you're suggesting that if slaves were better off by some criteria with someone else making decisions for them, even if they would prefer to not be under the control of that third party, then slavery would be in their best interest?
>"Tax is theft" is an unassailable moral position.
Some people forget that government programs are paid for through forcible income redistribution that in turn relies on the fear created by throwing non-compliers in prison. It's good to remind them, as it may go against their own morals. I think most people are fundamentallt opposed to violating other's rights to their person and property, and it is only the complexity of government, and the ideological constructs created to euphemize and justify its actions, that obfuscates the violence that it deals out, and makes people consent to it, and vote for programs that rely on it.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society#Prehistoric_...