Here is a link to a law paper (David Duff, University of Toronto) critical of the foundations of libertarian thought. He examines Locke’s and Nozick’s views of private property.Abstract:
The idea that taxes involve the confiscation of private property is widely held in popular thinking and scholarly writing. This article challenges the libertarian foundations of this assumption by critically examining libertarian theories of private property and their implications for tax policy. Part II summarizes the leading libertarian theories of private property, reviewing John Locke’s argument in the Second Treatise of Government and Robert Nozick’s account in “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” Part III examines the implications of these libertarian theories for tax policy, considering libertarian prescriptions for substantive tax measures as well as institutional arrangements that affect tax policy outcomes. Part IV criticizes libertarian theories of private property, casting doubt on tax thinking that relies on these libertarian foundations. Part V considers the implications of this critique for tax policy and tax scholarship.
Citation: U Toronto, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-10
“Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence”, Vol. 18, pp. 23-45, 2005
{ 20 comments }
From a quick reading of the conclusion section, Mr. Duff apparently rejects property rights’ arguments due to his ultimate support of some version of egalitarianism. Furthermore, in several places he makes the basic error of separating the distribution of wealth from its production. My initial impression is that a number of scholars associated with the Mises Institute could critically dissect this paper quite easily.
Another quick response: it seems difficult to imagine writing a serious paper criticizing libertarian thought on property rights without citing Murray Rothbard, who makes a much stronger case than does Nozick. If you want to write a serious paper criticizing libertarian thought on property rights, you have to confront the strongest arguments made for it, not run away from them.
I don’t know how a socialist such as Duff could be persuaded to view property rights from a libertarian perspective. What is obvious to a libertarian is beyond comprehension to a socialist. It reminds me of when i studied geometry. When the instructor told me he had just proved some theorem I usually had to just take his word for it.
Good point, David. I certainly agree. Rothbard was arguably the 20th century’s foremost supporter of individual property rights, and any serious critique of the concept needs to address his arguments.
The Professor Duffs of the world, having demolished the idea of private property as selfish and inegalitarian, never seem to have an answer when it is proposed that some of their poorer neighbors should stop by their house and steal – I mean tax – their unfairly acquired property and redistribute it equally among themselves.
Long and boring puzzling about property rights and tax proposals from great and principled libertarians like Epstein, Locke, Nozick, Mack, Mills, Hobbes and M. Friedmann.
??????
Does this professor realize how depraved he comes off in this?
David,
Where does Rothbard make these forceful arguments for property rights?
Dennis,
I think Duff does address the question of distribution and production. He comments that neither Locke’s nor Nozick’s theories of just acquisition and just transfer describe the actual distribution of property. Duff is correct that much wealth has been acquired through conquest and theft (see anarcho-mutualist Kevin Carson’s site for more). His argument is that the free market cannot be foisted on the present distribution without causing injustice, because the victims of conquest and theft have not been rectified.
I agree with Duff’s argument to a point, but I don’t see redistributive taxation as a solution. For starters, it’s overbroad. Some people are poor not because of injustice but because of moral depravity and laziness. Some rich did not steal their wealth but earned it by providing valued goods and services. Some became rich through dumb luck: the lottery, or stumbling across oil or gold. While there might be an egalitarian argument for taking from those who acquired through good luck, there is no redistributive argument for doing so.
Moreover, redistributive taxation strengths the state, and the state has been the engine of conquest and theft throughout history. If we want to prevent further injustice, dismantling the state is a good course of action.
- Josh
Rothbard makes the case for property rights in “ethics of liberty”, he goes over the whole homesteading theory. There’s also a little bit in “for a new liberty”
very interessing read, you have mroe like that ?
Duff has done a good job of exposing the internal inconsistency of the libertarian theory of government. The underlying principle of libertarianism is non-initiation of force, yet libertarians turn right around and create a coercive state apparatus which enjoys monopoly status on the initiation of force.
Duff rightly points out that governments must tax in order to exist. Since taxes are used to provide benefits to the collective, the existence of taxes means that the collective owns some portion of the fruits of an individuals labor. Certainly a person cannot support taxation and, at the same time, absolute property rights.
Since taxation denies absolute property rights, Duff goes on to use libertarian support for taxation (as expressed by Locke and Nozick) to undermine their case for property rights.
I don’t see any flaws in this reasoning, which takes up about 20 of the 25 pages. The remainder of the paper which advances collectivism in place of property rights is sketchy and easily refuted.
Duff notes that taxes are required otherwise the “free riders” would enjoy the protection of the state without contributing towards it. He does not speculate on the field day that free riders would have in a system where not only the state’s protective umbrella is free, but in fact the fruits of every person’s labor (or some portion thereof) is also free.
This article brought up an interesting point for me, which is another way of examining the libertarian contradiction. A problem with taxes is the tax base (what is taxed) and the tax rate. Mises showed that socialism is doomed to failure because of the absence of a price system means rational market decisions cannot be made.
The minimal libertarian government that serves to protect our rights is doomed to failure for the same reason. The state monopoly on justice means there is no price system for justice, and therefor rational decisions concerning justice cannot be made.
–steve
No Steve, libertarians don’t turn around, they are anarchists, so this reasoning is only good against statists.
Hillel Steiner, who is actually something of a Georgist, has made the most thorough case for individual rights as property rights that I have seen.
Josh,
I do not believe that libertarians would disagree that considerable wealth has been accumulated through conquest and theft. They would certainly add, however, that by far the major perpetrators of these crimes have been governments. Moreover, I believe libertarians would also note that virtually every person or group has been aggrieved at some point in history, so establishing a just system of restitution would be rationally impossible. Among other issues, how would this tremendous amount of theft be accurately and consistently measured? How would Mr. Duff know what a just distribution of existing property should be? In reality, he has no way of knowing, and I believe that from his statements he would implement and enforce some form of egalitarianism. In addition, while were on the subject of conquest and theft, according to Mr. Duff’s arguments, Canada should be given back to the French and property redistributed accordingly, since the British gained possession of Canada from the French through war, i.e., conquest.
What libertarians, I believe, would argue is that all government interference with private property rights and the market economy should be ended as soon as possible, if not immediately.
And regarding egalitarianism, as Rothbard noted, it is a revolt against nature, and as such, does not recognize reality and reason and requires violence on a massive scale to implement.
The underlying principle of libertarianism is non-initiation of force, yet libertarians turn right around and create a coercive state apparatus which enjoys monopoly status on the initiation of force.
Which is why some of us have become anarcho-capitalists, arguing that the monopoly on the use of force is also unjustified.
His argument is that the free market cannot be foisted on the present distribution without causing injustice, because the victims of conquest and theft have not been rectified.
Hard to do this topic justice in a short amount of space. If we’re talking about conquest and theft that took place a long time ago, then both aggressor and victim are dead. Some people suggest restitution or reparations to the victims’ descendants, but is this really fair? In both the case of the aggressors and victims, we might reasonably think that they would (or did) leave their wealth to their children, who in turn would also leave their wealth to their children, and so on. But we cannot justifiably assume that to be the case. A person has the right to leave their wealth to anyone they want, and children have no real right to inherit their parents’ wealth. Thus, taking from the aggressors’ descendants and giving to the victims’ descendants would not ensure that justice had been done.
Furthermore, we talk about “accumulating” wealth, as if it were some kind of collection, stored away in a room or safe gathering dust. But wealth is goods and services, which are intended for eventual consumption, and money is simply representative of that wealth, and is subject to various forces like inflation or contraction of the money supply, interest, etc. In short, the economy is fluid, always changing, and inheriting wealth may be an advantage, but no guarantee of continued wealth. Wealth can be maintained and increased only by competent, responsible financial managers, and easily lost by poor financial managers. Last, but not least, if we do have a relatively free economy, then there is no substantial hindrance to anybody becoming wealthy (justly acquired wealth, that is), no matter what their background.
Whoops! Left off my closing line:
Thus, we should do as Dennis suggested, and primarily work towards a free economy so that equality of opportunity exists for all in society to gain wealth, instead of the impossible task of rectifying all historical wrongs.
Someone may successfully argue that there are no naturally existing property rights, but any such argument should be of very little concern. (College philosophy club free will vs. determinism debates come to mind)
For, with the theoretical and emperical information provided by libertarian scholars and thinkers, the best thing to do if you just can’t bring yourself to fathom the idea of “naturally occuring rights” is to simply pretend that they’re there. The results of actions in which ‘property rights’ (imaginary, real, whatever they be called) were not acknowledged include war, pollution, murder, senseless violence, over-consumption, and depletion of needed resources. Would David Duff, or anyone for that matter, wish to be hailed as the champion of such actions? Possibly, in which case we should arm ourselves against that person.
Going a little bit farther than that, there should be little visibile difference between an intelligent, far-sighted utilitarian and an advocate of private property rights. “We have rights” versus “We don’t really have rights, but history and human nature prove to us that it is clearly better to act as if we did.”
Chris, you might find it interesting that Mises was entirely utilitarian in his reasonings in favor of individual private property. The further he delved, the clearer it was that it’s simply the way that people function best.
Maybe lesser intelects who see the same patters refer to “natural rights” when the delving becomes too obscure. Not so with a Giant of the science of reasoning and logical deduction.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mises’s (in my opinion) unequaled accomplishments in economic science during the 20th century. However, as far as ethics is concerned, I also believe that the natural rights approach is just as, if not more rational, than the utilitarian viewpoint. More fundamentally, ethics and economics are distinct disciplines. At the risk of oversimplifying, ethics delineates what ends man should strive for, while praxeology/economics analyzes the implications of the fact that man uses means to attain chosen ends. In the context of the ends/means framework, praxeology will explain what the consequences of our actions will be and whether a particular means is logically capable of producing a given end, but it can not establish what ends we should strive for.
Comments on this entry are closed.