I'm trying to find a coherent account of why property is a natural right from the perspective of liberals. Classical liberals like Locke relied on a theologic account to justify property, the idea being that God intended for humans to have property and hence that property ought to be a right. However, you rarely see this type of ethical conceptions nowadays, so I was wondering if there still exists liberals trying to justify property through ethics or whether they had all given up and appealed to pragmatism.>libertarian theory of rightPlease nothing too retarded. Practically every discussion I've had with lolberts on political theory -- whether rights, States, or ethics -- revealed that they had 0 understanding of what they were talking about.
But lolberts have the same views on property as Locke
>>25631152Yeah but they don't justify it from the same angle. Locke appeals to theology whilst lolberts (usually) try to justify it from ethical egoism or pragmatic appeals, which is why it usually fails.
>>25631143The answers are out there, you're just too much of a retarded dipshit to understand them.
>>25631143Jonathan Haidt - The Rightous Mind gets into the moral dimensions of modern liberal and conservative perspectives
>>25631156how are either of those bad or worse than theology?
>>25631143Doesn’t picrel contain a page where it says you’re not supposed to care that diversity creates low trust societies because at least the bank trusts you with a loan?
>>25631143Locke does justify property ultimately with God, but his reasoning is that God own you, and as His property He an do whatever He wants with you. Such as to to give or renounce rights. It happens that He gave you the right of property by his Will, so its is a natural right because it was always willed by God. The main chain of reasoning is: God owns you, you owns your body, your body owns its labor; hence, when you labour, the labour is mixed to the product you acquiring. Since the labour mixed is from your body, and you own your body, and this is right given by God, then the thing become yours. Diferent from the classic defence of private property that affirmed that property is a right for it is necessary towards the perfection of human nature; Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas and etc....Libertarians would exclude God from the picture and usualy assume a pragmatic defense, or intent an appeal to absurd conclusions, or a self evident principle. You can find pragmatic defenses with Mises for example. The arguments from absurd conclusions you can find with Rothbard and Hoppe. The first argues that if you do not own your body, someone elses owns it, but this is absurd, so you own your body. The second argues, more or less, that to even argue about anything you must be using your body, thus, to negate you own your body while using it to negate such is absurd. Both arguments do not follow btw.
>>25631229Not OP but he sounds capable of understanding them to me. Where are the answers? Can you give us a name? Or are you just a triggered lib, vagueposting about your own lack of ideological consistency
>>25631143>or whether they had all given up and appealed to pragmatism.Another Jeremy Bentham hate thread I see
Go ahead and justify equality in any form without appealing to metaphysics
>>25631143Rawls?
Well one thing you learn from Hegel is that liberalism is more than crude theories of property rights, which he rejects. It’s really like a cult with its own elaborate mythology and theology. Hegel is essentially the Bible of liberalism. However translating Hegel into plain terms:>sure, we’re part of society, a free society. But I need something of my own to own or else individuality gets ranrodded. If you own nothing of your own, how can you be free?That’s how I’d gloss it.
>>25632343>A person must translate his freedom into an external sphere in order to exist as Idea. Personality is the first, still wholly abstract, determination of the absolute and infinite will, and therefore this sphere distinct from the person, the sphere capable of embodying his freedom, is likewise determined as what is immediately different and separable from him.Hegel is smart enough to recognize that private ownership as such is merely a building block of liberalism; the market is much MORE than property and ownership (Marx also understood this in his own way); property as such is “abstract”. But you see how he sees it as part of freedom, to have your own private efficacy in the world. Here’s how he glosses his own words:>The rationale of property is to be found not in the satisfaction of needs but in the supersession of the pure subjectivity of personality. In his property a person exists for the first time as reason. Even if my freedom is here realised first of all in an external thing, and so falsely realised, nevertheless abstract personality in its immediacy can have no other embodiment save one characterised by immediacy.Apologies for the Hegelese. Just as the Bible is Greek and Hebrew, liberalism is in Hegelese.
>>25631143>why property is a natural right from the perspective of liberals.You mean like land? I'm pretty sure for classic liberals ownership of land is determined by you improving or developing it. You can't just lay claim to land because you're near it but if you've cleared it and farmed it you have a claim. It works well to explain why Indians didn't own all of North America but in most countries the government owns everything through title and far more often than not won't sell.
>>25631143Further proof that Ameritards don't know what liberalism is.
>>25632331Rawls incorporated social contract theory from Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. Familiarity with just one will most likely filter someone. You also shouldn't mistake Rawls for being dead set left wing, despite similarities to Hegel he can respond to Hegel's right on a number of topics using Hegel's methods. He also has responses to Nietzsche, without any new morals Rawls's response is basically just forcing him to admit he's a perfectionist without perfection if he can't demonstrate. Marx was probably the only philosopher Rawls had struggled with, but Rawls's responses to other types of socialists are pretty damning, left or right. For Marx Rawls is forced to make a conjecture and let Marx decide how to respond. Certain responses might elicit agreement from Rawls (he made his philosophy compatible), other responses could issue a refutation (he wasn't kind towards most flavors of socialism). During his lifetime he struggled to respond adequately to Nozick, but time has favored Rawls extensively. He also struggled against communitarian philosophy, someone like Sandell could challenge his original position material. Time hasn't favored either side on this one. Supposedly he was influenced by the rapid changes in post WW2 Japanese society, his state of nature material is almost impossible to refute unless 1 theorist is specified (hence the communitarian open challenge). If you can't define liberal then don't waste your time or the OP's, just recommend some Michael Moore books or YouTube videos from the zoomer equivalent.
>>25632402American message board. Don't like it? Leave.
>>25632430Onry Amelican dis retarded.
>>25631143The idea of justifying property as a concept is absurd. It's so nonsensical that I can't see a reasonable response to the question, beyond making the obvious point that someone or something could take property from another party and make it their own.Any justification beyond this is a political effort to lay claim on the property of others via intellectual principle rather than warfare.
>>25632479Property (such as territory) is a concept recognised throughout the animal kingdom. But not by you, apparently.Even your dog knows the chewtoy belongs to him.
>>25632463Squinty eyed tiny penis retard
>>25632565... who can kick you off this board at his whim.
>>25632414I can define a liberal as someone that follows an ethical system based upon individual innate rights property ownership.
>>25632658>I canWho's a big boy?
>>25632479>>25632487I think you two agree though
>>25632579I should have kicked your mother in the stomach when she was pregnant with you
Justify me not killing you without referencing God
>>25631143as long as liberals feel like they got permission, they'll believe they're entitled to pretty much anything.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxRsA7e2bw&ra=m
