I know I am moving the discussion back a step or two, but these issues are important if subsequent argument is to rely on adequate answers to these foundational questions:
That property rights are absolute presumes that one has a right to property to begin with. The question then is: in what is such a right grounded? This is relevant because if there is no grounding, a property right cannot reasonably be said to exist. To say that rights are conferred on us by God has the odd consequence that if God did not exist, then rights would not exist. The same goes for a protoplasm. Problems also arise when claiming we are endowed with rights by nature or the universe. Do we know this is true in the same way we know that nature or the universe endowed us with certain physical restraints such as the law of gravity? How can we prove this? In any case, to say, "our god/creator/universe/random protoplasm/what-have-you endowed individuals with natural rights" answers the question: "Where do rights come from?" It does not necessarily guarantee a satisfactory answer to the question: "How are such rights justified?"
Even if we do find a suitable grounding for rights in general, that is, even if we prove they exist, it is a further task to prove they are insuperable so long as they do not infringe on the exercise by any other individual of those same rights. Also, we must supply an argument for why property rights belong to this set of absolute rights. Arguing that property rights are foundational for all other rights does obviously entail their membership in such a set, but that is a stronger claim, and one that is therefore harder to prove. Perhaps a sketch of that argument is provided, but at the moment I am not sure how to interpret the phrase 'to own one's liberties.' What exactly does this mean? In any case, it suffices to prove the weaker claim that property rights are simply part of an overall rights scheme--not that they are the foundation for such a scheme.
One thing to keep in mind is the distinction between a property right in oneself and a property right in external worldly resources. When we discuss a right to property as being an absolute right, which type of property right are we talking about? Are both kinds of rights absolute? Even Locke, a big fan of natural rights, placed limits on the right to property in external resources. His Proviso stipulates that in appropriating previously unowned worldly resources, one must leave "as much and as good" for others. Robert Nozick, perhaps the prominent libertarian philosopher, stipulated a similar proviso.
There is a lot to chew on here, but the most important thing to do first is find a suitable foundation for rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thank you for taking a more radical approach and discussing the roots/foundation for property rights. I agree that claiming an unverifiable souce as a giver of fixed rights is weak at the very least, and that it is important to further discuss the constructedness of our understanding of ownership.
I am curious whether a right to own oneself, as claimed by oneself, may actually lead to a disolving of a right to worldy/material ownerhip all together.
Though I don't currently have time to pull up research, doesn't owning oneself, and the labor of of oneself, deny anyone from owning someone else and the products of their labor (or selling their own selves/labor?)
I have to run... will comment more later... Love you guys.
'Radical' to me seems too strong a characterization. I just think any view that draws so heavily upon rights needs a decent account of why we have them. Otherwise, how else can one hope to convince skeptics that a rights-based philosophy is the right one?
To answer your question, I do not believe self ownership contradicts the owning of others or the products of their labor or the selling of one's self/labor. I think this is because the definition of ownership entails that people are allowed to sell what it is they possess. I can own your labor so long as you transferred your ownership over that labor to me, as is your right by virtue of the fact that you own your labor.
love you too, Jeff
Post a Comment