Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning Feature: Whose Liberty, Part II - Libertarian Myths and Privilege (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What you have left out entirely is the (11+ / 0-)

    obligation that comes with the right to private property.  That is, the right to have not just one's person (privacy), but the material assets to which one lays claim respected is not included and, indeed, contradicts the inherent right of any organism to sustenance, mobility, interaction and communication.  In a sense, the right to property is a civil right because only in a civilized society is it recognized.  In the natural world, it's keep as can keep and assets have to be constantly protected from externals claims.

    The proponents of private property would have us believe that exclusive use is a natural right AND that society is obligated to protect and promote it on behalf of the individual, while the individual has no concomitant obligations at all.  I suspect therein lies the difference between the liberal and the libertarian.  The liberal recognizes the principle of trade and exchange; the libertarian is an evolved predator whose prey volunteer to be et.

    Obligation is a principle that both conservatives and libertarians ignore.  They simply don't want to hear about "taking" creating a reasonable expectation that, at some point in time, there will be a "giving back."  Perhaps the problem is structural in the sense that many people seem unaware of the function of time as a linear reality.  When they are unable to make an immediate exchange, they simply ignore that an action is part of a sequence, having past and future potential.
    It's not necessarily that they "forget history;" they have no awareness of the past to forget.  In which case, it's not possible to have a sense of obligation.

    Indeed, our relationship to our native parents is shrouded in ignorance because, even in the fully developed brain, conscious memory doesn't kick in until the age of two or more.  Sustenance and protection from the elements only become conscious when they are lacking -- i.e. deprivation is what triggers sensory perception and cognitive awareness.

    (Which is why, if the above hypothesis is correct, trying to elicit cognitive information via sensory deprivation is a really stupid, counter-productive tactic.)

    Finally, one might ask to what extent the insistence on private property rights for individuals whose personal privacy is routinely disrespected serves to distract from an abusive regimen.  To what extent are property rights being coercively protected by the mantle of deprivation?  
    Could the libertarian argument not be stated as "if you promise to make no claim against the assets I have acquired and claimed, I won't object to your making claims on what isn't available to be claimed"?  It's like being able to demand clean air when all the air is polluted.  Or being permitted to speak when there's no-one present to listen.

    Natural persons can be free because nature's limits are quite severe. Artificial persons need to be restrained.

    by hannah on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:55:26 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Baltimore (78)
  • Community (78)
  • Freddie Gray (57)
  • Bernie Sanders (55)
  • Civil Rights (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (35)
  • Media (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (26)
  • Education (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site