Rudd Wants to Turn Australia Into Sweden

A letter from the Wall Street Journal (Asia Edition) on 19 May highlights the risks associated with Rudd's Resources Super-Profit Tax.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's idea of a "super-profits" tax on the mining industry ("What Is a 'Super Profit'?" Review & Outlook, May 10) is a typical stunt he learned when he was a diplomat in Stockholm.

Since 1983, different Swedish governments have put a super-profits tax on hydropower. Before that, it was a cheap and reliable source of electricity for Swedish pulp, paper, steel and mining companies. Much of Swedish hydropower was built over decades by Swedish industrialists to secure energy supply for their manufacturing industry. But after the tax was introduced and raised almost annually, Swedish companies started to sell their heavily taxed hydro-power stations to other investors.

Today most of the formally private-owned hydropower is owned by foreign state-owned power companies as Fortum (Finland) and Statkraft (Norway) and the privately held Eon (Germany). Electricity prices in Sweden are now as high as in Germany.

The same thing happened when Britain's Labour Party introduced a windfall profit tax on utilities. The tax depressed profits and led to an exodus of British institutional investors from the sector. It was then easy for continental corporations like RWE and Eon (Germany), EDF (France) and Inberdrola (Spain) to buy them cheaply. Today almost all the British power companies are owned by foreigners, and the government has to make all kinds of tax concessions and subsidies to get them to invest in new plants in Britain.

For Australia, a super-profits tax on mining would make stocks in the mining companies cheaper as many private investors would sell out because perceived political risk. State-owned Chinese and Indian corporations will then have a great opportunity to acquire a substantial part of Australia's mining industry. In the long term, these countries will then have more clout in dealing with the Australian government than private investors.

Stefan Björklund

Vevey, Switzerland

Original article courtesy of the Wall Street Journal

Comments

[Riet Rotherham]

1.

Ending up like Sweeden wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, tbh.

[trinna]

2.

Sweden.........

Top 5 country for lowest infant mortality.

One of the highest for life expectancy.

Also one of the highest for national literacy.

Ditto for healthcare.

Peaceful political outlook.

Respects science and technological development as key to it's future and funds it as such (4 % of it's GDP)

16 months paid parental leave.

Kick-Arse Independent Rock n’ Roll scene.

But, you know, their taxes are really high, so it's a failed state right?

[Sinclair Davidson]

3.

Yep, Sweden is a failed state.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

4.

But, you know, their taxes are really high, so it's a failed state right?

It's also at the top of the wheel; it's the Swedish heyday. The basis for the Swedish quality of life was set decades ago. As they've adopted the European soft-socialist model they've slowly slipped and, despite some good reforms being made in the last decade, I suspect they'll continue to move down the ladder.

Sweden has an unusual advantage though in terms of being a small, relatively homogenous nation with a strong work ethic. That's the only way socialism really has a chance of working. The Scandinavian model is much like the German one, and it will help them remain further up the quality-of-life ladder longer than say France or the UK. But I doubt they'll be too high in a decade or so.

[trinna]

5.

As the conclusion states "The majority of women reporting rape across Europe do not see justice done, and rising attrition rates make this more likely in 2009...."

A sad though not unusual state of affairs, but which country has by far the highest report rates in all this? Why Sweden, of course. Congratulations to them for creating an environment where woman feel safe to seek justice for sexual crimes- unlike most other cultures and countries.

Or do you somehow think countries where women don't report rape have less violence against women??

Hey, I've got a great idea then, lets not criminalise rape and then there won't be ANY reports at all and all sexual violence will be eradicated! Hooray!

[jc]

6.

Trinna:

Sweden would have a standard of living comparable to the poorest state in the US. IF you think that's success then I guess we have different views.

[trinna]

7.

Sure about that jc?

I'd rather live in Gothenburg than Detroit any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

If you think a standard of living is measured in tax laws, rather than healthcare, infant mortality, literacy and longevity then we certainly do have different views and yours are just plain scary.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

8.

Trinna,

Detroit was propped up by unsustainable subsidies and suffers from the unintended consequences from brutally harsh and counterproductive drug laws.

Sweden is a liberal society with low barriers to trade.

They would go a long way if they liberalised their labour market (even with legislated conditions) and reformed their taxes to lower rated, broad based consumption taxes.

Slowly economic growth would ameliorate the need for such a holistic welfare system.

They're about half right in their approach.

[Ben]

9.

I love it when Europeans get pissy with Australian leftists. LOL: He must have been really pissed to write to the Wall Street Journal too.

[trinna]

10.

"Slowly economic growth would ameliorate the need for such a holistic welfare system."

If it aint broke don't fix it I say.

Maybe if you could list where the Swedish standard of living could be improved and which nations have these recommendations in play(with the same or higher standrds of living) I could be convinced.

Remembering of course that the unbridialed ability to make money and consume more does not equal a higher standard of living for anyone.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

11.

""Slowly economic growth would ameliorate the need for such a holistic welfare system."

If it aint broke don't fix it I say. "

Um Trinna that's really, really dopey. You're saying they should be less well off simply to preserve demand for and reduce the feasibility of the welfare State. You're also implying they have no udnerclass. Which is bit of a blind assumption considering they have 20-25% *real* unemployment, in 'good' times.

"Maybe if you could list where the Swedish standard of living could be improved..."

Everyone's standard of living can be improved. It's immoral to stand in the way of this.

"Remembering of course that the unbridialed ability to make money and consume more does not equal a higher standard of living for anyone."

No, but "happpiness" as it was found in the literature was conditional on firstly having a decent income.

Next was health (which requires financing of some kind), sex and winning at sport.

[trinna]

12.

"No, but "happpiness" as it was found in the literature was conditional on firstly having a decent income."

um yeah, a decent income. Not the ability via deregulation to make billions at the expense of working conditions, health and wages of others.

“You're saying they should be less well off simply to preserve demand for and reduce the feasibility of the welfare State”

Less well off? What don’t the Swedes have which makes them intrinsically less well off then us because they manage to provide brilliant parental leave, healthcare and education? (Swedish unemployment is at 9.8 percent BTW- a bit down form the glorious heights of 12% a certain J. Howard took us to in the early 80s as Treasurer . See? They can go up and down for anyone you know)

"Everyone standard of living can be improved."
That's where we differ. The underclass can be brought up via education, health services and yes, jobs, but that ain't going to occur purely by the infamous 'trickle down effect'.
As for people like you and me in the chattering and whining classes what more do you need to improve your life? A designer wardrobe for your dog?
It's immoral to not address the fact you're a glutton. It’s also immoral to usurp the worlds resources for trivial ‘wants’ which could be used to improve the lives of others who actually need it.

Anyways, this is such a waste of time.

I’ll leave you lot of dorky males to get back to your pursuit of good shares, bad clothes and the illusion that because you own an Audi you must be a creative and special human being.

[Graham]

13.

>>Not the ability via deregulation to make billions at the expense of working conditions, health and wages of others.

This is the crux of it. What we're fast losing sight of is the point of markets in the first place, and it is NOT to keep improving standard of living indefinitely while simultaneously reducing QUALITY of life for ever growing portions of society.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

14.

Markets happen Graeme. They are a process that occurs - not an institution invented by some benevolent Government.

Otzi - covered in ice - was fidning a market. He wasn't serving it. He had needs and could gain from trade.

Your insinuation about the poor is trash. What "quality of life" do you have if you don't have enough for adequete nutrition?

"Not the ability via deregulation to make billions at the expense of working conditions, health and wages of others."

Trinna - google is one of the most wealthy companies on earth with the most high growth rates. It has a reputation for treating staff brilliantly.

You're (still) saying they should be less well off simply to preserve demand for and reduce the feasibility of the welfare State.

This is really, really, really dopey. The purpose of the welfare State is a safety net. Reducing the demand for this and also the feasibility of it is a noble goal. It's almost as like you wish people to be in need.

John Howard should be pillioried for his awful performance as Treasurer. The difference then in 1982 as to now where in the last downturn, half of the reduction in output was absorbed by less hours and job sharing was a flexible labour market.

The Swedes still have 20-25% total (i.e including hidden) unemployment.

""Everyone(s) (sic) standard of living can be improved."
That's where we differ."

Indeed. Not only is your worldivew actually quite depressing and misanthropic (ironically, this is a slur thrown by leftists at their opponents), it is not in touch with reality.

"The underclass can be brought up via education, health services and yes, jobs, but that ain't going to occur purely by the infamous 'trickle down effect'. "

What is going to pay for the revenue to fund these services, either paid for them or someone else?

I'll give you a hint: just because Bruce Sprinsteen wrote a song about something doesn't mean it is a bogeyman. After microeconomic reform in the 1980s, we had quite a bit of "trickle down". Worker productivity and real wages rose sharply and for a long time.

What is puzzling is that you're not only opposed to these ideas, but you're opposed to their benefits.

"As for people like you and me in the chattering and whining classes what more do you need to improve your life? A designer wardrobe for your dog?"

What a stupid and venal question. AIDS has no cure. Cancer has a patchy series of partial cures. There is poverty in Australia and elsewhere.

Until we've conquered disease, poverty and even rather decadent needs of the least well off, I don't think there is a need to question human wants.

You seem to think we're better off if they're unfulfilled.

This is a casulty of 20th century economics - the left has lost the argument over socialism and command economies and has even lost the happiness debate now.

The only way to "betterment" is through poverty.

"I’ll leave you lot of dorky males to get back to your pursuit of good shares, bad clothes and the illusion that because you own an Audi you must be a creative and special human being. "

I'll let you simmer in your own juices until you realise your abandonment of the poor is nothing more than a personal snub against the benefits of free enterprise etc that people were worried would work against, but alas have benefitted the poor. It is simply a way of keeping alive tribalism that should have been vanquished by a mugging courtesy of reality.

[Graham]

15.

>>Markets happen Graeme. They are a process that occurs - not an institution invented by some benevolent Government.

Society happens. Markets are agreed upon to facilitate society. We decide the nature of those markets by social contract, of which Government currently plays a significant part. You mistake the market for society itself. It's not.

>>What "quality of life" do you have if you don't have enough for adequete nutrition...

What? Who is advocating inadequate nutrition?

What I'm cautioning against is a propensity we have as humans to take our philosophy through to excessive conclusions, arguably the cause of much of history's social injustice. That's why I lumped you in with the Communists the other day.

You suggested that standard of living can and should continue to increase. I simply suggested that a balance between standard of living and quality of life needs to be recognised as an important imperative for society as a whole. What good is an ever growing choice of cheap products when you need to spend all your time at work, away from your children, just to house them and put them through school? Or for that matter what good is a big screen television at home when you're forced to compete for jobs by relinquishing more and more of your time in a deregulated labour market?

Of course this is where you wax lyrical about flexible individual contracts and 'downscaling' lifestyle for time. This is when you begin to sound more and more like you're talking about a utopia completely removed from reality, an accusation you seem all too happy to level at others.

Markets serve society's ends, society doesn't serve the market's ends. Even the staunchest of Libertarians recognise the need for this, as most of their arguments are based on maximising utilitarian measurements of return, or theoretically doing so, considering their utopia has never existed.

>>Worker productivity and real wages rose sharply and for a long time.

And the other side of the story? The hours worked by the average middle class family today are generally more than double that of the 50s and 60s. Now we have BOTH parents working full time, just to keep their head above water. A growing number of them are unable to. The numbers show that their money isn't going on televisions and holidays, it's going on the mortgage and education. Generations of children essentially growing up without their parents.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

16.

If it aint broke don't fix it I say.

Give it a decade or so. It's coming.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

17.

"Markets are agreed upon to facilitate society."

This is divorced from reality. Markets in goods are not consensually agreed upon by committees of stakeholders.

"We decide the nature of those markets by social contract"

Society, which encompasses market processes, is not dependent upon well meaning middle class people who have read Rawls deciding what happens and doesn't happen. Society, like these other institutions and processes, happens because we are social animals. It's anthropological, not philosophical.

"What? Who is advocating inadequate nutrition?"

Yes not you. Trinna thought we had enough. I think until the most venal desires of the least well off are satisified, no one can say we overconsume etc.

"What I'm cautioning against is a propensity we have as humans to take our philosophy through to excessive conclusions, arguably the cause of much of history's social injustice. That's why I lumped you in with the Communists the other day."

Is this why you belieive a consultative committee at the UN determines what markets exist and don't exist?

" I simply suggested that a balance between standard of living and quality of life needs to be recognised as an important imperative for society as a whole."

Read some of the happiness literature. You cannot have the psychic goods without first having the dough. If people struggle despite working hard, saving and udnergoing an education - we conclude that is their consumption choice or another party has some legal advantage over them. These advantages, like Govenrment backed restrictive trade, need to go.

"What good is an ever growing choice of cheap products when you need to spend all your time at work, away from your children, just to house them and put them through school?"

That's your choice. Not my tastes - but that is irrelevant. It isn't my decision to make for you.

Why do people work stupid hours in Australia?

Let's look at income taxes.

The poor - get discouraged out of work into poverty traps. Some pay over 100% in EMTRs. They are better off NOT working.

The well off virtually get driven offshore, viz. the brain drain. Why study for university for 4-7 years and then get taxed more than in Communist China?

The middle class, who try to increase generational wealth get highly taxed. The EMTR of someone paying off a mortgage is easily over 60% when you realise 31% of the property price is embedded in taxes - on top of their income tax etc.

"Or for that matter what good is a big screen television at home when you're forced to compete for jobs by relinquishing more and more of your time in a deregulated labour market?"

Working hours decreased and saved jobs in the downturn.

"This is when you begin to sound more and more like you're talking about a utopia completely removed from reality, an accusation you seem all too happy to level at others."

You just ignore the tax system. As if it doesn't matter.

"Markets serve society's ends, society doesn't serve the market's ends."

Markets exist, like family, relationships etc. They just happen. There isn't a feelgood committee in the UN that novates them into existence.

"Even the staunchest of Libertarians recognise the need for this, as most of their arguments are based on maximising utilitarian measurements of return"

...which they pass with flying colours. The left fell in love with "happiness". Now they've found you need a base of wealth to pursue psychic goods, now poverty is "desireable".

"And the other side of the story? The hours worked by the average middle class family today are generally more than double that of the 50s and 60s."

No they are not.

http://andrewnorton.info/category/employment-work/

Actually Andrew has some excellent articles.

"Now we have BOTH parents working full time, just to keep their head above water. A growing number of them are unable to. The numbers show that their money isn't going on televisions and holidays, it's going on the mortgage and education."

How much of that is tax? Frankly I think it is perverse facing an ever high tax rate to pay off a loan which financed by almost 1/3, another tax.

See graph 16 and table 6:

http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/papers/gw03_house.htm

"Generations of children essentially growing up without their parents."

This is also correlated with increasing Goverment spending and taxation revenue. Is this implicit in the social contract?

[Graham]

18.

>>Society, like these other institutions and processes, happens because we are social animals. It's anthropological, not philosophical.

Seriously, you don't think philosophical thought throughout the ages has had a role in shaping our society? I would suggest that shows a profound lack of insight into human history. And the present.

Quite literally the notion of private property itself is a philosophical institution. It is not a natural right or naturally occurring phenomena, despite the dubious justification by your own philosophy. It is a socially accepted institution. It doesn't "JUST HAPPEN".

Markets stem from this basic institution, and they occur because different parties engage in consensual trade of goods. Both parties accept the terms of agreement. Furthermore, the 'rules of the game' are very much maintained through formal institutions. If they weren't they would be through tradition and custom. Markets are entirely socially constructed. They are not natural states.

>>Is this why you belieive a consultative committee at the UN determines what markets exist and don't exist?

I never suggested that. I said they were decided by social contract, not the UN.

>>...which they pass with flying colours.

Really? They pass with flying colours based on predictions about a society that has NEVER EXISTED. You have a strange notion of what passes for evidence.

<<"And the other side of the story? The hours worked by the average middle class family today are generally more than double that of the 50s and 60s.">>

No they are not.>>

They are, for the simple fact that in today's Middle Class reality both parents are required to work full time. In the 50s and 60s this was NOT THE CASE. There is an interesting book by a woman called Elizabeth Warren on the topic, called The Two Income Trap.

And as predicted, like every utopic religion, you blame all ills on the "system" and suggest the only way to fix it is to tear it all down - without a moments thought as to why it is the way it is in the first place.

The only reason we got education for the poor, health for the poor, and fair god damned work conditions is because we demanded it through political action. It certainly wasn't given willingly. Do you think Government just sprang up on a whim? There's a reason why your utopia has never existed. The closest we have come to it earned itself the nickname the Dark Ages.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

19.

It doesn't "JUST HAPPEN".

Then find someone with some property that they've acquired through their own labours and sacrifice and take it off them without their consent. It may give you a quick education in the spontaneous nature of private property.

[Graham]

20.

And the markedly different approach to land ownership displayed in aboriginal societies? If it's a 'natural' right, why is it some societies deal with it in a completely different manner?

There is a political and philosophical case to be made for private property. I happen to think it's a strong wrong. But this doesn't make it a natural right or naturally occurring. It is socially constructed and maintained through the social contract. If the institution of private property is socially constructed then necessarily so are markets that engage in the trade of goods, since they stem from this basic axiom.

We largely decide on the nature of those markets, their rules, their customs, and the end to which they serve society. No more clearly is this represented than through Democratic government.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

21.

They were a stone-age tribal society who:

a) hadn't developed the means to acquire or produce property in sizeable volume or to a sufficiently sophisticated level to which ownership would have been an issue (or in the case of land, to work the land in a way that required ownership); and

b) still depended upon the tribe as their primary means of survival, thereby diminishing the imperative for private property (but also preventing the benefits and progress delivered by private property from being obtained, hence part of the reason for their perpetuity as a tribal society).

As with any number of negative natural rights, private property can be considered from the context of a social contract, or as a spontaneously emerging right. These things not only co-exist, but in fact define each other. The social contract is based on rules reasoned from emperical evidence about the human condition i.e. the basis of negative natural rights. But negative natural rights can only really be called 'rights' when they're acknowledged by human beings as condition or rule to be afforded ubiquitously i.e. a social contract.

So private property might be part of the social contract, but it is wrong to state that it only comes into existence by that contract.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

22.

Also, all human beings have some private property starting with their own bodies. It's part of the human condition. You have no obligation to respect it, but you can't have society without it.

Using the aboriginal example, imagine Tribe A has just killed a kangaroo and have it on the fire. Tribe B turn up and decide that they're hungry but too tired to hunt, and Tribe A's bounty looks mighty fine. While it's not impossible they might all sit down to dinner, I'd say there's a good chance of conflict coming from a sense of ownership by Tribe A.

[Graham]

23.

Michael it is entirely possible both A and B are the RESULT of a particular view of private property, not just the cause of it. Nevertheless various aboriginal societies have had particular social contracts which held markedly different approaches to private property, showing precisely how dependent its nature is on particular cultural views.

>>The social contract is based on rules reasoned from emperical evidence about the human condition i.e. the basis of negative natural rights.

I would actually dispute private property as being legitimately classified as a natural right. Ownership over our bodies is a different matter because the argument can be made that we ARE our bodies and as such are instilled with natural rights that extend from that. It's a lot more difficult to make that argument regarding private property, despite Locke's attempt to do so. I find that attempt rather problematic to say the least.

I noticed a typo in my previous post. I meant to say there is a strong political or philosophical one (case), not wrong, to be made for private property. Which you've largely done in your last example.

That still doesn't detract from my position that the nature of private property is socially constructed. Present day liberal democratic societies accurately reflect that, which is why we pay taxes and have shared public land and resources.

[Graham]

24.

My reference to A and B being your first post, a) and b).

[Michael Sutcliffe]

25.

It's exactly the same argument (among a number of others) and it wasn't just Locke who made it.

Your body is extra special because it's inextricably linked to your right to life. The right to life supersedes the right to property (although the big three - life, liberty, property - are very closely linked as the body example shows). But the argument can be made for other pieces of property. I live longer because I have a house. It is protecting my life - it keeps me secure at night, it prevents the deterioration of my body, and it helps me heal when I am sick. If I work fields to provide for my nourishment, it's because (among other things) it helps me live longer, and wrestling buffalo for dinner had a propensity to shorten your lifespan. Hence, I claim this property - my house and my fields - as part of my right to life - basically because I don't want to die, or die sooner that have to. Show me a society that doesn't have private property that has longer living and healthier bodies than one that does.

Then there's the aspect which I think you were getting at with Locke (related to the 'big three' above). When I build a plow to work those fields I've invested part of my life in that piece of property, hence that piece of property embodies part of my existence. You take that plow, or whatever I've mixed with my labour and time, and you take part of my life. If you take the plow from me you've essentially 'killed' the month of my life that I spent building it, and prevented my from using it to provide food for myself.

Then there's the physical nature of the world we live in. If you use my second example above, only one of us can eat a piece of food. It's not a social or intellectual construct, it's a physical fact, and someone is going to claim ownership.

That still doesn't detract from my position that the nature of private property is socially constructed.

Yet, after all this, you still want to maintain that private property is a social construct. You should be a socialist or nihilist, it'd only be a small step for you to make.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

26.

"Seriously, you don't think philosophical thought throughout the ages has had a role in shaping our society? I would suggest that shows a profound lack of insight into human history. And the present."

I don't think Otzi cared. Or he prioritised.

"Quite literally the notion of private property itself is a philosophical institution. It is not a natural right or naturally occurring phenomena, despite the dubious justification by your own philosophy. It is a socially accepted institution. It doesn't "JUST HAPPEN"."

Yes it does. They are a social convention - not an invention of the State. A social contract is not necessarily needed to predicate their existence.

See:

Umbeck, J., 1977. The California gold rush: a study of emerging property rights. Explorations in
Economic History 14, 197–226.

Umbeck, J., 1981. A Theory of Property Rights with Application to the California Gold Rush. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA.

"Markets stem from this basic institution, and they occur because different parties engage in consensual trade of goods."

You're rewriting history and philosophy to suit your preferences. Property rights emerged because it was the most convenient way to organise trade - in the Californian goldfields at least.

"They pass with flying colours based on predictions about a society that has NEVER EXISTED. "

??? You're syaing utilitarian analysis is based on utopia? No offence, but do you understand what utilitarian means?

" There is an interesting book by a woman called Elizabeth Warren on the topic, called The Two Income Trap."

Likewise, Andrew Norton has busted everyone of these myths, virtually single handedly. I bet you're not game to look at the evidence. You simply ignored a tax system that forces people to go into debt heavily for the "privilege" of home ownership - to which the income they pay this mortgage off with is also heavily mortgaged.

"And as predicted, like every utopic religion, you blame all ills on the "system" and suggest the only way to fix it is to tear it all down - without a moments thought as to why it is the way it is in the first place."

I don't even know what the hell you're on about here. I want the Government to spend money or regulate where there is only a clear net benefit, and to respect our civil liberties under common law. Basically that would entail a liberal domination of the old Fusion party, with our modern values and technical knowledge.

It's like you've accused John Hewson of being an anarchist. Or a Year Zero Khmer Rouger. I think you're being hysterical.

"The only reason we got education for the poor, health for the poor, and fair god damned work conditions is because we demanded it through political action. It certainly wasn't given willingly. Do you think Government just sprang up on a whim? There's a reason why your utopia has never existed. The closest we have come to it earned itself the nickname the Dark Ages."

Education for the poor was not out of benevolence. It was because of social control. The benevolence came later. There is a positive externality argument for this, but this doesn't gainsay a desire for good administration or competition and choice. Health for the poor is largely attribuable simply to higher living standards - vis a vis economic growth. Our Medicare system is expensive and woefully inadequete. The PBS loses as much money in production subsidies as it saves in monopsonistic purchasing power.

These are not pure public goods. They may be merit goods. If there is a net benefit of having them provided by the State, it is not helpful hysterically claiming those who want this administered and designed properly are "tearing down society".

The Dark Ages in mainland Europe were characterised by a concentration of State power in the hands of those who believed they knew what social contract everyone else wanted.

England was freer. It became a target for those same thugs (who eventually installed Feudalism). It became somewhat wealthy and very early basis of common law rights emerged. They still had a social contract (under monarchies after all) but it was much less restricitve.

[Graham]

27.

Michael again, I concede there is a political case to be made for private property rights. This doesn't make it a natural right! Your first example is a political case, evident in the fact that these problems can be solved WITHOUT the need for private property rights, as has been done in various societies throughout history.

The second argument IS an argument for property rights as a natural right. I would argue it's problematic for a few reasons. How does it apply to something like child birth, for instance? If a mother exerts time and labour over matter to create a child, is it her property, and at what point does it stop being her property and when does the child's own natural right to liberty supersede it? If life, liberty, and property are all natural rights, why is there this apparent contradiction between the last two?

[Graham]

28.

>>They are a social convention - not an invention of the State.

I think you're confusing the phrase social contract with Government. I would argue that it can be broadened to include 'social rules' or conventions that are not necessarily enforced by the State, but are agreed to as governing principles that facilitate society. Government may naturally extend from that, but it is not one and the same.

>>Property rights emerged because it was the most convenient way to organise trade - in the Californian goldfields at least.

I haven't disagreed with that. In fact I've been arguing that very point from the beginning of this discussion. In this way the 'customs' or 'rules' of markets are maintained, to facilitate trade. Trade occurs to facilitate society. But this only serves to show how they ARE socially constructed. What's also explicit in Government as resulting from the social contract is its role to play in administering the framework and regulating those markets for society's ends. It's a combination of Democratic Government and markets that have led to the most complex and stable social systems in recorded history.

>>It's like you've accused John Hewson of being an anarchist.

The problem is that your own philosophy naturally trends towards an extreme rejection of all forms of Government, and you've displayed that rather clearly in your arguments - not just here but also on the mining tax. To then step back and paint yourself as John Hewson is a little disingenuous. Your problem isn't just with Government administration, it stems from a rejection of that Government's right to do so in the first place. It's from that premise that you try and validate your deductions.

[Graham]

29.

My other post never made it for some reason. Anyway I'll shorten it. I think it's clear our positions begin from very different premises and neither of us will gain anything from arguing further.

>>Yes it does. They are a social convention - not an invention of the State. A social contract is not necessarily needed to predicate their existence.

I think you're confusing the term "social contract" with Government. While the latter may spring from the former they're not necessarily one and the same thing. It's my position that social contract can include social conventions, or 'rules' that are agreed upon for the facilitation of society, but not necessarily enforced by Government.

>>Property rights emerged because it was the most convenient way to organise trade - in the Californian goldfields at least.

This would not be inconsistent with my above explanation of the term social contract and with what I have been arguing since the beginning of this discussion. Nevertheless the legimitacy of Government as extending from the social contract apparently includes explicitly its role as providing the framework for, and regulating, markets. Debating that is a debate on the merits of Democracy, or otherwise.

Your argument, like most Libertarians, is generally made from three positions. The first is the illegitimacy of Government, particularly over income taxation and land taxation as it relates to liberty and private property. The second is "minimal Government" as being more efficient economically. The third is utilitarian benefit.

I question the first based on questioning the notion of private property as a natural right. The second is open to debate, and I agree that there are many areas best organised by market forces. The third I fundamentally question, not necessarily in its accuracy as an assessment, but in the adequacy of utilitarian measurements in deciding social good.

My assessment that you want to "tear down society" is based on your apparent belief in the first of these arguments. What you're doing is using the other two to support that original premise, in my position. So stepping back now and painting yourself as John Hewson is a little disingenous.

What's interesting is that essentially the LDP is a political party that may have the same accusations levelled at it as the Greens do on this site. It is a 'political mainstreaming' of a philosophy that is extremist in nature.

[Graham]

30.

Oh...something strange there...apologies for the double post.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

31.

"It is a 'political mainstreaming' of a philosophy that is extremist in nature."

Sorry but asking for evidence based policy and otherwise respecting common law rights isn't "extremist" at all.

It is entirely laughable to say so. The LDP isn't populist. Populist policies, on the other hand, may or may not be extremist.

The LDP has many socially beneficial policies like removing poverty traps that put the least well off out of jobs. You're a smear merchant and tacitly support the underclass as an institution.

More later.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

32.

Michael again, I concede there is a political case to be made for private property rights. This doesn't make it a natural right.

Are we arguing semantics here? How compelling a case? Rights are created by 1. there being a compelling case for them, and 2. a group of people acknowledging that case, usually through law. What do you think a right is? What rights exist; do you agree with a universal right to life? Why isn't it nothing more than a social construct?

Your first example is a political case, evident in the fact that these problems can be solved WITHOUT the need for private property rights, as has been done in various societies throughout history.

What societies have solved these problems without the need for property rights? You can't point to a tribal society, or a state of nature, and claim that these people exist but they don't have property rights -there you go? They didn't progress pass the stone age, and if another society with property rights came across them, they had no right to deny this society property rights, or to claim ownership over even their own land without claiming some sort of property rights.

I'll get back to the rest after dinner.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

33.

Graham,

Unless you've redefined the what social contract means (like how you've redefined *extremism*), you're wrong. A social contract gets changed - property rights as a concept do not. Governments can change what rights we have, but it doesn't gainsay their philosophical underpinnings. Nor does such a change mean that people's social conventions change.

"This would not be inconsistent with my above explanation of the term social contract and with what I have been arguing since the beginning of this discussion. Nevertheless the legimitacy of Government as extending from the social contract apparently includes explicitly its role as providing the framework for, and regulating, markets. Debating that is a debate on the merits of Democracy, or otherwise."

Here is where you become very slippery. You've changed the definition but now the Government changes the trade offs as per the normal definition.

"Your argument, like most Libertarians, is generally made from three positions. The first is the illegitimacy of Government, particularly over income taxation and land taxation as it relates to liberty and private property. The second is "minimal Government" as being more efficient economically. The third is utilitarian benefit."

Land taxation? Taxation of rents, PROPERLY designed (the RSPT does NOT tax rent, but profit) are efficient, equitable and difficult to avoid - like a well designed consumption tax. Libertarians are more sympathetic to this than you have indoctrinated yourself.

Where the Government doesn't act in our benefit, it is acting without moral legitimacy. This infers 2 - which is nearly always right. 3. is a function of 1.

This is true. Unless you contend that Government acting against our benefit is acting with moral legitimacy. This can only be underpinned by rejecting property rights, self ownership etc in an extreme form - one that permits inequality before the law etc.

"My assessment that you want to "tear down society" is based on your apparent belief in the first of these arguments. What you're doing is using the other two to support that original premise, in my position. So stepping back now and painting yourself as John Hewson is a little disingenous."

No, it isn't. He was the most libertarian politician we had and his policy reflected something close to a moderate libertarian position.

"What's interesting is that essentially the LDP is a political party that may have the same accusations levelled at it as the Greens do on this site. It is a 'political mainstreaming' of a philosophy that is extremist in nature."

This makes me angry beyond words. It is just a lie. Liberalism, in the true sense of the word is about moderation and tolerance. You allow adults to make their own choices. You do not compel or prohibit on whims.

This is moderation. This is the centre properly defined. Forcing people to do things or not do things, beyond the scope of civil protection, defence or utilitarian gain with the coercion of the State is extremism - you would be simply demanding your social preferences be enforced at the barrel of the gun, rather than persuading people to come to your views.

Evidence based policy, common law rights, civil liberties and the acceptance of the usefulness of the market system is not extremism. It's commonsense.

You do well to drop the smear-merchantry.

[Graham]

34.

@Michael
>>Are we arguing semantics here?

No, I would make a clear distinction between natural rights, and legal/political rights. Natural rights being rights that are considered endowed naturally and inalienable, legal/political rights that are based on law/custom/Government etc.

Whether there IS such a thing as natural rights is an interesting question. I think the strongest case to be made would be for the right to life as a natural right. I don't think property rights comes even close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right

@Semi Regular Libertarian
>>A social contract gets changed - property rights as a concept do not. Governments can change what rights we have, but it doesn't gainsay their philosophical underpinnings.

That's your opinion on the nature of the philosophical underpinnings of property rights. If you consider it a natural right then yes, you would be right. I've explained how I disagree with that notion.

>>Libertarians are more sympathetic to this than you have indoctrinated yourself.

I meant land tax as in land related taxes, stamp duty, capital gains tax on land purchases etc. Property. Any Libertarian who holds the rights of liberty and property as natural rights must necessarily draw the conclusion that these taxes are theft.

>>This makes me angry beyond words.

Relax. I worded that badly. My point was simply that the same accusations that are leveled at the Greens could be leveled at the LDP. I don't believe the accusations that are leveled at the Greens.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

35.

"That's your opinion on the nature of the philosophical underpinnings of property rights."

No, it's the standard idea of what a social contract is. I never commented specifically about natural rights.

"I meant land tax as in land related taxes, stamp duty, capital gains tax on land purchases etc. Property. Any Libertarian who holds the rights of liberty and property as natural rights must necessarily draw the conclusion that these taxes are theft."

No they don't actually. You don't need to think that way to have an uncompromising, moderate and robust libertarian approach.

1. Taxation required to pay for spending beyond a justified level is morally theft but more akin to extortion.

2. Those are some of the most inefficient taxes you could possibly have. If you're going to fund justifiable projects or redistribution - do so in the least damaging way possibe.

3. It is not fair to give someone the advice of 2. and be labelled as "destroying society".

"My point was simply that the same accusations that are leveled at the Greens could be leveled at the LDP."

Credit where credit is due. The Greens have stood up for civil liberties and against China's repressive regime.

On the other hand, their economic policies are whacko, as so is the social engineering they'd like to engage in.

The LDP wants you to live and let live. That's not equivocal with the Greens, and if it's extremist, then so is every political viewpoint - given it is the most accomodating and moderate of them all.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

36.

Natural rights being rights that are considered endowed naturally and inalienable, legal/political rights that are based on law/custom/Government etc.
........
Whether there IS such a thing as natural rights is an interesting question.

There are certain aspects of the human condition which are universal. These things are our 'common humanity' and the reason why we choose to exist as a society - and we do choose because we are beings capable of choice despite evolving from pack animals. When we come together as a society you can consider that a social contract exists. But it is not arbitrary. We cannot enshrine whatever we like in that contract and call it civil society.

If we come in from the direction of the individual, a person will behave in a way to protect their own life regardless of what the social contract affords them. They will behave in a way to obtain their own freedom, regardless of what the social contract affords them. And similarly, if we take their property - defined as per the definitions we've raised above - they will act to protect their property and retain ownership of it regardless of what the social contract affords them. They will effectively insist these things are rights that they have, regardless of what the contract is claimed to offer them or deny them.

If we come in from the direction of the contract, a person will disregard any contract that does not guarantee the sanctity of his life. Similarly, his freedom and his property. If you take these things from him, he will not honour or value that contract, and you will not be able to be used it to form a basis for civil society.

So a negative natural right is not 'endowed' by nature in the way that the right to legal representation before a court is endowed by a legal system. Perhaps that's what you are getting at. But these things - life, liberty and property - are universal to any moral or legal system that involves the interactions of beings who survive by the rational application of values i.e. people. No progressive or civil society can exist without affording these rights to it's constituency (and don't point me to a stone age tribal society and tell me they're progressive or civil). By that meaning these rights are known as natural rights, as they are derived from the natural state of the human condition.

They're called negative natural rights because they don't afford obligations on other people, thereby other people really have no natural reason to resist them. Again this is derived from the natural state of the human condition via reason.

Why don't you give me an example, either real or theoretical, of a progressive civil society that doesn't afford rights of life, liberty or property within its social contract?

(BTW, you're mother/child example above is another argument - and quite a long one. Obviously the child has some of the attributes of an adult, and will become an adult in due course. If you want to investigate property rights I suggest you remain in the realm of inanimate objects and land, and adults of sound mind, otherwise you'll confuse the issue. We can do that argument some other time if you like).

[Michael Sutcliffe]

37.

Graham, sorry I just read your Wikipedia link and I've probably reiterated one or more of the arguments on there; sorry if I'm telling you to suck eggs. However, for what it's worth, I think my argument above is quite concise and accurate.

If you're familiar with the arguments I'm putting forward why don't you disprove them? I've pretty much given you everything I've got on natural rights, and I also see it as pretty watertight. Why don't you do me a favour and show me where the leaks are? If you don't subscribe to it, I'm curious why that's the case?

[Graham]

38.

Michael I think mostly we agree, particularly on the basis for property rights as currently serving society's ends. Where we appear to part ways is in the origin of the notion of property. I don't think it stems from the “human condition” if you are using the term human condition in an immutable sense.

It may be that this debate basically ends up as a variant of chicken or the egg, nature vs nurture, and the latter is a debate that has been occurring at the very least since human beings could write. We're not going to resolve it here.

Nevertheless I'll make a few comments to try and condense my position.

Human psychology is not set in stone, and this may be where you and I fundamentally part in our views. Accepting the role of genetics as somewhat relevant, it largely adapts to its institutions. If you raise a child within a society that has little to no notion of private property then I would dispute your assertion that human beings will 'always act to protect their property'. People will only act to protect their property if they BELIEVE it to be THEIR property, and that first needs a belief in the idea of private property at all. The right to life is a different argument, and could more accurately be said to be Universal. In a great many respects the human condition is created by environment. Appealing to it as justification for institutions is problematic because the institutions themselves serve to maintain and enforce it. It's like repeatedly telling a child from birth that they're stupid and then pointing to their poor report card as proof. A poor analogy, but it may clarify what I mean. We have obtained some understanding of how environment can greatly affect behaviour.

[Graham]

39.

The reason why you won't allow tribal societies as examples is because they don't adhere to your notions of progressive or civil. These notions are largely subjective, but that's another debate. The simple fact is that societies with little to no property rights do exist, and do so quite peacefully. There are thousands of communes worldwide that share income and property, apparently defying the human condition.

The institution of private property may have evolved socially as a favourable method of facilitating social interaction, and been entrenched institutionally and psychologically, but that does NOT suggest that it is a 'natural right', that it is not socially constructed, and that it cannot be adapted based on cultural specificities, or even that something completely different will replace it in the future as human consciousness evolves. Whether it is preferable to do so is a different debate, and one that we would probably be on the same side of.

The reason why I suggest that this departure is so important, while largely agreeing with a preference for private property in our current state, is because viewing property as stemming from some immutable human condition firstly leads to a maintenance of the status quo, and secondly leads to claims for rigid property rights which call into question their flexibility as a social institution; the legitimacy of Governments to tax, for instance. This is the position of many Libertarians, although Semi Regular would appear to be more moderate in his views.

[Graham]

40.

>>The LDP wants you to live and let live. That's not equivocal with the Greens, and if it's extremist, then so is every political viewpoint - given it is the most accomodating and moderate of them all.

Interestingly enough I took one of those 'political spectrum' tests on the LDP website, and came up as a potential candidate for membership.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

41.

Maybe you should join?

Kochie would be behind you too. He called for a "democratic liberal" party today.

You don't believe you're destroying society, do you?

I think your first two paragraphs in your response to me are nearly spot on. You forget that communes are not coercive. Libertarians are against unecessary coercion - not collective action. Civil society and philantrhopy shoudl be encouraged. I'm baffled as to why Rudd decided to disempower philantrhopy recently.

Policy that pushes people to dependency on the State is simply bad. It isn't feasible and it restricts their choices. It is also laden with traps of unintended consequences.

I think property rights do evolve from anthropological causes. They should also be strong because of utilitarian and philosophical reasons. I think they are all inter-related. I don't think that is wrong, rather it is axiomatic. You canot accept it or not, there is no correct or incorrect.

I am very ardent as a libertarian. I also have the sense to realise that good is not the enemy of the best. I realise not everyone will agree with me, or that I might be able to convince 95% of people to about 70% of what I want for Governance. If they get some concessions, I ask that they are designed with a utilitarian framework and civil rights in mind.

Good policy will see rights defended and discovered, and economic growth ameliorating dependency on the State.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

42.

Good to see the old poll Sam and John created is still in use!

Maybe you should join?

Kochie would be behind you too. He called for a "democratic liberal" party today.

You don't believe you're destroying society, do you?

I think your first two paragraphs in your response to me are nearly spot on. You forget that communes are not coercive. Libertarians are against unecessary coercion - not collective action. Civil society and philantrhopy shoudl be encouraged. I'm baffled as to why Rudd decided to disempower philantrhopy recently.

Policy that pushes people to dependency on the State is simply bad. It isn't feasible and it restricts their choices. It is also laden with traps of unintended consequences.

I think property rights do evolve from anthropological causes. They should also be strong because of utilitarian and philosophical reasons. I think they are all inter-related. I don't think that is wrong, rather it is axiomatic. You canot accept it or not, there is no correct or incorrect.

I am very ardent as a libertarian. I also have the sense to realise that good is not the enemy of the best. I realise not everyone will agree with me, or that I might be able to convince 95% of people to about 70% of what I want for Governance. If they get some concessions, I ask that they are designed with a utilitarian framework and civil rights in mind.

Good policy will see rights defended and discovered, and economic growth ameliorating the dependence on the State.

[Graham]

43.

>>Kochie would be behind you too. He called for a "democratic liberal" party today.

I actually think this has been a political niche waiting to be filled for quite some time, and successfully so in the UK it seems. I think this will continue, Ron Paul's popularity would suggest it's on in the US.

As much as I would disagree with more extreme Libertarian philosophy there's a lot I do agree with them on. I would identify with the LDP more strongly than the Labor party, that's for sure, and Liberalism and Conservatism are a mix that often appear to contradict each other. I think that rift is increasingly evident within the Liberal party. I'd certainly be happy if the LDP took off in Australia, as another major voice in the political landscape.

But I do worry about the potential for excesses in any party. Evidence based policy is what we need, but the dangers of political philosophies is that they encourage politicians to form policy based on the philosophy, rather than pragmatic solutions. They also encourage people to selectively seek evidence that supports their philosophical foundations. The behaviour of the Tea Party in the US isn't particularly inspiring in that regards.

I also have some reservations with utilitarianism as being solely adequate to measure outcomes.

>>You forget that communes are not coercive.

I think coercion is an inevitability of social relations. Communes are coercive, but that coercion doesn't stem back to a gun, and that's an important distinction and probably what you meant.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

44.

The reason why you won't allow tribal societies as examples is because they don't adhere to your notions of progressive or civil.

No shit! When was someone going to tell me? (Only joking)

These notions are largely subjective, but that's another debate.

What defining parts of civil society are subjective? Consensual government? Right to a fair trial? Right to life? Give me an example?

The simple fact is that societies with little to no property rights do exist, and do so quite peacefully.

Can you give me an example?

There are thousands of communes worldwide that share income and property, apparently defying the human condition.

Yeah, normal people call them families....(but I'm still interested in any other examples you might have). But as SRL point out above, these are done consensually. Believe it or not, that's actually consistent with the rules of civil society and natural rights. However, you'll notice when they don't work out and people have to dissolve the consensual union, the standard rights to property tend to apply.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

45.

I also have some reservations with utilitarianism as being solely adequate to measure outcomes.

You prefer good feelings?

[Michael Sutcliffe]

46.

I think coercion is an inevitability of social relations. Communes are coercive, but that coercion doesn't stem back to a gun........

I'm (genuinely) interested, Graham. What does it stem back to then?

[Graham]

47.

>>You prefer good feelings?

Theoretically utilitarianism could be used to justify something like slavery, depending on the caveats you put on it. Does that make you feel good Michael?

Utilitarianism CAN lead to the tyranny of a majority over a minority.

Look these are all different discussions probably better off had elsewhere, like the one about the subjectivity of notions like 'progressive' and 'civil'. I'm not entirely dismissive of utilitarianism, it has much merit, but I have reservations about it being adequate alone. Which is why I believe in the need for Democracy to be underpinned by a Constitution, incidentally.

>>I'm (genuinely) interested, Graham. What does it stem back to then?

It's difficult without talking about specific situations, but the concept of power relations is a pretty complex one in my opinion. Behaviour within a commune is regulated by the community, like any society has unwritten 'social rules'. That's a form of coercion, which occurs to varying degrees and in varying manner.

They're not coercive in the sense that they FORCE people to stay, but it's not as simple as that. Once within a commune bonds are made. Children form friendships, people form attachments to lifestyle, time and effort is invested. Threats of cutting people off entirely if they leave are common - many cults operate with this kind of coercion.

You can make the argument that people still voluntarily stay or leave, but I honestly think that oversimplifies an extraordinarily complex issue. This kind of coercion may be LESS morally reprehensible than that of a gun, but it is still coercion. This argument extends to workplace bargaining as well.

This is another issue I have with Libertarians who oversimplify power relations by suggesting that any coercion that occurs by means other than the gun as either overstated or simply nonexistent. Not laying accusations here, I'm simply talking about other discussions I've had with various Libertarians.

[Graham]

48.

>>Threats of cutting people off entirely if they leave are common - many cults operate with this kind of coercion.

Need to correct that - I didn't mean threats of this nature were common in communes, simply that it happens within many organisations - cults in particular.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

49.

Theoretically utilitarianism could be used to justify something like slavery, depending on the caveats you put on it. Does that make you feel good Michael?

Exactly the opposite, Graham. Utilitarianism explains why keeping slaves is not an optimum solution for society. In other words, an absolute reason why we shouldn't do it. Bet you don't have one of those?

Utilitarianism CAN lead to the tyranny of a majority over a minority.

Certainly, but only in certain situations, like times of war. Even libertarians agree that is reasonable, so long as it's temporary.

Look these are all different discussions probably better off had elsewhere, like the one about the subjectivity of notions like 'progressive' and 'civil'. I'm not entirely dismissive of utilitarianism, it has much merit, but I have reservations about it being adequate alone.

It's up to you. To be frank, I'm genuinely interested in whether you have something new and interesting I need to know about; in other words, that you have some perspective that really does challenge the 'standard' notions of classical liberal democracy. I suspect you're just working through these issues for yourself. Which is great, and I'm happy to continue or not, as your wish may be.

Which is why I believe in the need for Democracy to be underpinned by a Constitution, incidentally.

I see what you're saying, and I think I can see the issue you're working through. It boils down to the idea of society spontaneously occurring via anarcho-capitalism versus the need for overarching pre-agreed values articulated in something like a constitution. No worries. If you need more on the anarcho-capitalist side read some of David Friedman's stuff. (I agree on the need for a constitution, but not for the same reasons).

They're not coercive in the sense that they FORCE people to stay, but it's not as simple as that. Once within a commune bonds are made. Children form friendships, people form attachments to lifestyle, time and effort is invested.

Yep, if you have the option of leaving the coercion is either 'overstated or simply nonexistent'. What you're talking about is the cost of continuing in that relationship or circumstance. Every relationship or circumstance has a cost, and you need to weigh that up against benefits. And don't say things like marriages aren't treated that way; people make these decisions whether to stay or go based on cost/benefit all the time. The emotional cost is just a cost you have to bear, and you weigh it up against benefits emotional or otherwise.

BTW, can you give me an example of 'societies with little to no property rights do exist, and do so quite peacefully', because I'm curious at what you are getting at. Are we talking about consensual arrangements like families, or are you saying there is a sophisticated Amazonian tribe with written law and high society that doesn't believe in property rights?

[Graham]

50.

>>Utilitarianism explains why keeping slaves is not an optimum solution for society.

No, its proponents attempt to make it explain it that way because they know it is a weakness. It can just as easily be used to explain the opposite. The American south did exactly that in their argument against the abolitionists. My absolute argument against slavery would most likely be one made from Liberty. I would argue it is closer to an absolute one than one made from Utilitarianism.

>>To be frank, I'm genuinely interested in whether you have something new and interesting I need to know about.

There are plenty of strong arguments to be made against both Utilitarianism and Libertarianism, most of them made better than myself. Yep, I am trying to work things through myself. So should you be. You appear to have your convictions though, and that's fine. I'm just wary of clogging this blog post's comments section with difficult philosophical questions that have been occurring for a long, long, time. I enjoy discussing them, even if I'm proven wrong. Actually better for it. I learn more that way.

>>It boils down to the idea of society spontaneously occurring via anarcho-capitalism versus the need for overarching pre-agreed values articulated in something like a constitution.

Partly. It also partly boils down to the problem of utilitarianism potentially allowing for the tyranny of a majority over a minority. Democracy is arguably a utilitarian system. We have a constitution to avoid the potential for a majority unreasonably oppressing a minority in that system.

>>The emotional cost is just a cost you have to bear, and you weigh it up against benefits emotional or otherwise.

Well that's one way of putting it. There are still mechanisms of coercion at play, no matter how much you simplify it. Perhaps your definition of coercion is a little more absolute than some others.

>>'societies with little to no property rights do exist, and do so quite peacefully'

I was talking about communes.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

51.

No, its proponents attempt to make it explain it that way because they know it is a weakness. It can just as easily be used to explain the opposite. The American south did exactly that in their argument against the abolitionists.

The South lost because they were agrarian slave-keeping feudalists (versus the industrialised north who were enacting post-Enlightenment classical liberal values).

Slavery is a state of perpetual conflict and uses force over reason as the means of progress. If you think a utilitarian argument to justify the keeping of slaves can be built around this, then let me know what it is?

My absolute argument against slavery would most likely be one made from Liberty. I would argue it is closer to an absolute one than one made from Utilitarianism.

Well, they're really the same argument in the long run. Before you can have utilitarian argument you need to define what the 'good' is. But at least you're acknowledging the negative natural right of individual liberty.

There are plenty of strong arguments to be made against both Utilitarianism and Libertarianism, most of them made better than myself.

I'm waiting for them. It's bizarre, plenty of people tell me they're out there but I'm yet to find anyone who's willing to point me to them or argue them out with me.

Democracy is arguably a utilitarian system. We have a constitution to avoid the potential for a majority unreasonably oppressing a minority in that system.

Absolutely. Democracy with no acknowledgement of individual rights is simply mob rule (or tribalism). There are moral rights that supersede democracy. Strangely, they're centred around life, liberty and property.

I enjoy discussing them, even if I'm proven wrong. Actually better for it. I learn more that way.

That's why we're all here!

I was talking about communes.

That's another one of those things that people say are out there, but can never seem to point you to them. Where are they? There's Christiania in Denmark, but even that seemed to me to have private buildings, locks on doors, fees to use the rollerskating rink and shops that didn't seem to encourage the community to take what they wanted. I think private property was pretty much alive and well. Perhaps you have a better example?

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

52.

Graham,

1. The Tea Party have some very reasonable points but they attract some shrill, unhinged followers. They attract even more shrill and unhinged opponents. Polarisation is part of American politics I really dislike. If the original message of the Tea Party was followed, America would be a better place. I wish them well but I wish they'd lift their game.

2. Why are communes necessarily coercive? It's like you've forgotten the distinction between laws and rules - rules can be followed as long as you would like to remain a member of the club. Being expelled from a cricket club isn't coercive. Being put in gaol is.

[Graham]

53.

>>If you think a utilitarian argument to justify the keeping of slaves can be built around this, then let me know what it is?

Morning Michael.

From my understanding the South argued from a number of perspectives, suggesting that freeing the slaves would cause widespread economic collapse, and that the slaves themselves would be much better off remaining slaves, because they would be well looked after by their owners. They pointed to the peasantry in England as an example of the state the slaves would end up if they were freed. Essentially the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

It's a lot more difficult to make that argument if you're arguing from Liberty or equality. But I also understand the utilitarian argument against slavery. I'm simply using it as an example of how it CAN justify unjust tyranny over the few.

>>But at least you're acknowledging the negative natural right of individual liberty.

I did? The negative natural right of individual liberty is a dream, partly because of the issue of inherent coercion in social relations that I referred to before, but also because I dispute the notion that freedom is the most important thing, at least not to the point that it grossly supersedes all other 'goods'. To talk about Liberty as if it is an achievable ideal is ridiculous. As someone who supports the idea of the social contract why would you think I acknowledge the negative natural right of individual liberty?

>>I'm waiting for them.

Perhaps the trick is not to wait for them, but to go out and look for them. I think we mentioned John Rawls on this forum before. He makes a pretty strong case against utilitarianism in his book A Theory of Justice, and Libertarianism in general. Check out John Ralston Saul. There are plenty of philosophers who argue convincingly for the role of Government, and plenty of economists. John Kay is one I would recommend. Put down Rothbard, Friedman and Boaz, and actively seek that which you disagree with.

As a primer, here is an article I read a while back. Managed to track it down again surprisingly.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

It really depends on what form of Libertarianism you subscribe to and this is the difficulty. Libertarians are a splintered group, with a bunch of offshoots and variants in responses to its critics. That's pretty evident in some of the assumptions I've made here about Semi Regular Libertarian, for instance. As a general rule, the further right you go, the stronger the critique gets, in my opinion.

To suggest that you have not found one good argument against Libertarianism tells me that you do not actively seek to read opposing views. There are good arguments against ANY overarching philosophy. There is no theory of everything. All models are flawed. I think as soon as you start thinking otherwise alarm bells should be going off. Some Libertarians tend to display a rather alarming religious fervour, to be honest.

[Graham]

54.

>> Being expelled from a cricket club isn't coercive. Being put in gaol is.

Well this probably boils down to a difference in our definition of the word coercive. You are no doubt coming more from an angle that coercion is simply physical force. But I don't agree that it is. I think that power relations are an incredibly complex issue.

As an example I saw a piece on the 7.30 report (I think?) the other day about Scientology. The claim was that its workers were grossly underpaid. Basically the workers claim that they were coerced into volunteering on threat of expulsion. Expulsion from Scientology means you are instantly and completely cut off from those who remain within the 'church'.

You and Michael would no doubt argue that it isn't coercion, that it is a choice to be weighed on the consequences. On one level I can understand that line, but on another I think it grossly oversimplifies the issue.

This is where we will fundamentally disagree I think, and it flows on into wider discussions about 'freedom'.

[Semi Regular Libertarian]

55.

"As an example I saw a piece on the 7.30 report (I think?) the other day about Scientology. The claim was that its workers were grossly underpaid. Basically the workers claim that they were coerced into volunteering on threat of expulsion. Expulsion from Scientology means you are instantly and completely cut off from those who remain within the 'church'."

I'm not going to get bogged down in this, but they have been accused of and criminally prosecuted before for a lot more than simply shunning people. I suggest you look at their illegal activities noted on wikipedia for example. Forgery, framing someone of attempted terrorism, stalking, violation, espionage, of privacy are beyond the scope of saying we're different semantically, or that can be normally referred to as "power relations".

That said, as your illustrative proof, you need something of more substance to make your point baout what coercion is or isn't.