Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood - Property
So, in an earlier comment discussion with Agorist I mentioned that I had reservations about the Libertarian-Propertarian ideologies that one finds on the internet. Agorist mentioned that he himself had some reservations, but though it had consequential benefits.
So I wanted to say what I think of property. But I think it might be a good place to give my view on morality, and specifically political morality.
Morally, I believe that we should begin with a presumption of liberty towards others - that other people can do as they please, unless we can establish a good reason why we ought to interfere with them. Amongst several individuals, this involves a social norm or convention on what is disrespectful of other individuals, and what is conducive or inhibitive of civil peace, personal well-being and a clearly delienated sphere of personal activity within which we will cede to the will of others.
I am a liberal of the post-enlightenment, sceptical pluralist variety. Unlike Enlightenment and Progressive liberals (among others) I share a great deal of the scepticism towards government intervention and paternalism that libertarians like Herbert Spencer might. I agree with some of the reasons they give for this, but I also have additional ones. I believe that politics ought to be the operation of people getting along, and especially avoiding violent confrontation or restriction of individual liberties. But we have to recognize the reality of human nature and the logic of our institutions, and of society itself. It seems that neither ideologies, nor States, are particularly good at economizing on resources. They also have vast difficulties getting ahold of problems and proposing both effective and acceptable solutions.
It seems to me that property is both realistic, conducive to liberty and well being and extremely useful for allowing a pluralistic manifestation of personal, divergent ideas of good. Essentially, without property some sort of tyranny or another sets in. And if we interfere with others property without sufficient justification, we are simply limiting their liberties of action (for all action includes property) arbitrarily. And the only violently enforced rules should be those acceptable to basic civil harmony and a variety of views and ideologies.
So I wanted to say what I think of property. But I think it might be a good place to give my view on morality, and specifically political morality.
Morally, I believe that we should begin with a presumption of liberty towards others - that other people can do as they please, unless we can establish a good reason why we ought to interfere with them. Amongst several individuals, this involves a social norm or convention on what is disrespectful of other individuals, and what is conducive or inhibitive of civil peace, personal well-being and a clearly delienated sphere of personal activity within which we will cede to the will of others.
I am a liberal of the post-enlightenment, sceptical pluralist variety. Unlike Enlightenment and Progressive liberals (among others) I share a great deal of the scepticism towards government intervention and paternalism that libertarians like Herbert Spencer might. I agree with some of the reasons they give for this, but I also have additional ones. I believe that politics ought to be the operation of people getting along, and especially avoiding violent confrontation or restriction of individual liberties. But we have to recognize the reality of human nature and the logic of our institutions, and of society itself. It seems that neither ideologies, nor States, are particularly good at economizing on resources. They also have vast difficulties getting ahold of problems and proposing both effective and acceptable solutions.
It seems to me that property is both realistic, conducive to liberty and well being and extremely useful for allowing a pluralistic manifestation of personal, divergent ideas of good. Essentially, without property some sort of tyranny or another sets in. And if we interfere with others property without sufficient justification, we are simply limiting their liberties of action (for all action includes property) arbitrarily. And the only violently enforced rules should be those acceptable to basic civil harmony and a variety of views and ideologies.