FTL2009-02-06 with Ian, Sam and Mark

Commentary only

Mark, you read an email entitled "Ownership" from someone, I didn't catch the name. Max? I don't know. I'll call him Max because I've tried listening again to the show and I still can't make out the name. Anyway, this is a point into which I've invested quite a lot of thinking time.

Max wrote that the idea of ownership is "not much more than the concept that humans gradually developed as time went by." And Mark, you said you didn't think that was entirely true, that kids grasp the idea of "MINE!" innately. I agree, and I could site a few references here to back that up, but I don't think it's necessary. Ownership is a simple concept that humans grasp naturally, almost instinctively, at a very early age.

We can use the term "property" to refer to just about anything, a plant, a rock, an animal, a specific area of land, the things we find on it, the things that live on it, the things we make out of it, food, crops, water, pets, livestock, shelter, buildings, bridges, roads, adult novelty items,... almost anything.

Anything COULD be property, but before we consider it property, we associate the thing with a number of other notions, specifically, a person, "the owner," the control or use that person exercises over the thing, and the right that person has to exercise control over it.

1. The thing itself
2. The person who controls it
3. The type of control exercised over it
4. The right of the person to exercise that control over it.

"Property" is the thing itself, the "idea of property" includes the other three notions above. I've gleaned these notions from comparing the definitions of "property," "own," "owner," "ownership," "possess," "possession," "right," "rights," "wrong," and so on in a number of different dictionaries, so I'm confident that this particular idea of property is not unique to libertarianism but is accepted by virtually everyone, at least everyone who speaks English.

And children grasp this concept naturally, almost instinctively, at a very early age. A little boy finds a toy that looks like it doesn't belong to anyone else. "Finders keepers," he says, claiming the toy as his own. He is the owner, the toy is his property, he gets to play with it as he sees fit, it is wrong, he feels, for any other child, or any other human being, to either take the toy away from him or determine how the toy may or may not be used. It is right, he feels, for him and only him to make that determination. He has the right. The toy is his property.

But here's something that most people don't think about. Because the idea of property includes the notion of whether or not it is right for a person to exercise control over a particular thing, the idea of property is a MORAL concept.

Without defining "right" and "wrong," there are no "rights," there are no "wrongs," there is no "property."

To possess something without the "right" to possess it would mean that it is not "wrong" for anyone to wrest it from you, and the contests over ownership would make human society indistinguishable from the brutality we observe in much of nature in which the law of the jungle prevails. No sane individual would want that, I think, so whether or not you believe in the "idea of property," and whether or not you believe, Sam, in the "notion of morality," in "right" and "wrong," you have to admit that, at the very least, these are useful notions and we ought to incorporate them into society.

The problem, of course, is that "right" and "wrong" seem to be so relative. Regardless, it seems, of how vehemently one person insists that something is a moral absolute, you'll find someone somewhere who says it's a moral relative. And with information being so readily available these days, it's so much more easy to find someone who claims that what used to be considered a moral absolute is actually a moral relative. We've reached a point where many people believe there are no moral absolutes. But if we don't agree on some moral absolutes, society degenerates back into a state indistinguishable from nature in which the law of the jungle prevails.

The problem is not that we're making things up, the problem is that we want to live peacefully together apart from the brutality we observe in nature, and we don't agree on, or we don't understand, which made up concept can accomplish that end most effectively.

The greatest problem that has always faced humanity is NOT how we organize our "government," what we write in our "constitutions," "moral codes," "bills or rights," or who we vote for to lead us, but rather our lack of agreement regarding the principle upon which society ought to be based.

On the one hand, you have the law of the jungle, the principle upon which much of nature is based, and on the other hand, you want to come up with a different principle, a moral principle because animals in nature are not moral, a principle of absolute right and wrong so we don't end up killing and eating each other's babies.

What is that principle? It's not property rights, but equal freedom, equal moral freedom, to be more precise.

Forget about this "you own yourself" argument. It naturally follows from the principle of equal freedom. If you think property rights really is the center of libertarianism, then the center of libertarianism is morality, the distinction between "right" and "wrong" with regards to the control everyone exercises of the things they and others claim to own, including themselves.

What is society's idea of property?

1. The things themselves.
2. Every individual human being.
3. The control each human being exercises over the things themselves.
4. Whether it is right or wrong for an individual to exercise that kind of control.

It's silly to suggest that simply because this is a made up concept, that the idea of property rights is an imaginary notion, it is devastating to libertarianism, because "libertarianism" is an imaginary concept. It's like saying that because the concept of "blooberenthomoltion" is central to "blooberism," the fact that "blooberenthomoltion" is imaginary is devastating to "blooberism."

I mean, come on. It really makes me laugh.

The problem is not that we're making things up, the problem is that we don't agree. What would be the most effective principle upon which to organize society so that we don't end up killing and eating each others babies?

As libertarians, anarchists, voluntaryists and whatever term you decide to call yourself, the most effective concept is one that recognizes property rights, and subsequently, one that recognizes a distinction between moral relatives and moral absolutes.

The REAL central concept of libertarianism, anarchism, voluntaryism and so forth is not "property rights" but "equal moral freedom." Now, I'm repeating myself. Sorry. But this is an important point to understand.

You are the moral equal of every other human being, or at least you ought to be the moral equal of every other human being, because if some people are morally superior to others by virtue of birth, honor or achievement, then we're no different from lions that kill and eat the babies of other lions.

You are my moral equal. I am your moral equal. I have a right to control my own behavior, you have a right to control your own behavior, and it is wrong for either of us to try to control the other.

The minute you violate that principle of equal freedom, as John Locke put it, you have "declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security."

It is wrong in absolute terms, if there can be any absolutes, for one person to control another because that makes one person the property of another and violates the principle of equal freedom.

Property is:

1. The thing itself (what if that thing is person X?)
2. The person who controls the thing (what if person Y controls person X?)
3. Control (any control person Y exercises over person X.)
4. Whether it is right or wrong for person Y to exercise that kind of control.

Any control that person Y exercises over person X makes them morally unequal. Therefore, according to the principle of equal freedom, it is absolutely wrong for person Y to exercise any control over person X. Furthermore, it is absolutely wrong for person Y to exercise any control over person X because if it were not wrong, society would degenerate into a state of war, we'd be killing and eating each other's babies. Therefore, the principle of equal freedom is the ONLY principle upon which human society can be based that could distinguish the ideal human society from the brutality we observe in nature.

Few people really understand this principle and its logical consequences, therefore few people agree, and because there is so much disagreement, we find it difficult to live with one another.

Sure, if everyone within a geographical area were to voluntarily submit to one form of "government," because they did so voluntarily, the principle of equal freedom would not have been violated. But as long as there are those within the geographical area who disagree, if they are forced to submit to one form of "government," they are not the equals of those who submit voluntarily, the principle of equal freedom is violated and the society degenerates into a state of war, not chaos, not anarchy, but war.

Mark, you said that the truth about property is that the state owns all property. Ian, you pointed out that the state is imaginary. Mark, you pointed out that so is property. The fact that its imaginary misses the point. The problem is disagreement. In society today, there are those who believe that the state owns all property, and there are those who disagree with that. So our society is in the process of degenerating into war. The war has already begun.

The next stage is to start eating babies, figuratively, of course. I'm sure you guys won't do that, but what's to stop those who believe the government owns you and all your property?

Ian, you pointed out that all of this changes when people stop believing in the "state." I would say that all of this changes when people start agreeing that everyone is morally equal. Whether or not the "state" exists and whatever the "state" does, if people come to really understand and accept the notion of equal freedom, all that changes and calls for a ceasefire in the war begin to be heard in every corner of society.

The problem, of course, is convincing a Zealot that the pagan Romans are their moral equals, figuratively speaking.

Right and wrong with regards to property rights is something that children learn at a very early age, and they would easily understand the notion of moral equality if they weren't so thoroughly confused by all the religious and political indoctrination that makes up modern society. Severely abused children often grow up to be "monsters" because their parents are "monsters," and they begin to perceive the treatment they receive from their parents as the natural order of things. Similarly, any child that is tyrannized at a very early age will perceive tyranny as the natural order of things. They are exposed to arbitrary and contradictory definitions of "right" and "wrong" in the home, in school and in the work place. The reason society is so fucked up is because people just don't understand the difference between right and wrong. Their ideas of right and wrong are a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas that they rarely question.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is first, to embrace the principle of equal freedom and all that follows logically from it, and second, to point out the contradictions in other people's thinking and help them re-learn, or learn for the first time what they should have learned when they were children, that every individual human being ought to be morally equal and equally free.

And Sam, I think you're right when you say that a lot of people won't be open to these ideas without civil disobedience really bringing it home to them.