tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post1124876044057980336..comments2023-04-16T23:43:11.235+08:00Comments on Mirror Signal Move: James Baron: Apologist For TheftMike Faganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-88602532635852199022013-05-07T13:51:43.542+08:002013-05-07T13:51:43.542+08:00There is no racism in the first appropriation prin...There is no racism in the first appropriation principle. Whether there might be instances of racism elsewhere in Locke's works I'm not sure - but that is a far more general claim than the specific claim about the first appropriation principle you initially raised. <br /><br />The first quotation there comparing the poorest day labourer in England to the North American chieftain is not racist, if that is what you mean by "interesting". It is merely a comparison of material standards of living (i.e. the day labourer was likely to be better fed).<br /><br />The second quotation, which criticizes the "no-waste" rule is valid up to a point, but the author then goes well beyond that point. So yes, if you wanted to buy say, an orchard just to photograph the fruit rotting or something... then fine and Locke's "no-waste" rule would be inappropriate. However, elsewhere in Locke's work (especially the "Letter Concerning Toleration"), he distinguishes between governance by law (i.e. by limited government) and governance by voluntary association and there is good reason to believe he meant the no-waste rule rather as a precept for righteous conduct rather than a law under which people could be sent to trial. Furthermore, the ridiculous example of hunter-gatherers claiming a <i>vast</i> tract of land as their property is problematic not because it is "wasteful", but because (a) they cannot reasonably expect other people on the other side of that vast tract of land to be aware of their claim, and (b) other people will likely also have competing claims, since they also require land to survive.<br /><br /><i><b>"Finally, at what point do we stop to address the euro-centric nature of Locke's philosophy..."</b></i><br /><br />We don't Ben, because we are not so superficial as to judge the content of a philosophy on the basis of which country a writer happened to be born in, or of what racial or religious characteristics the writer may have had. In short because we are not bigots.<br /><br /><i><b>"... how that does not take account of the possibility that there are multiple other notions of land sharing, use and portioning - some fair and some less so, that have functioned for thousands of years without ever needing someone to write a name of a piece of paper that says this is theirs?"</b></i><br /><br />I think that, although he was obviously limited by lack of data concerning land use systems in other cultures, Locke's discussion of property is not quite as parochial as you imagine - largely because you are ignoring the principle of voluntary action and exchange in play and instead concentrating only on superficial aspects of the discussion (e.g. the need for pieces of paper to write down property titles - as if there could be no other mechansim for identifying legitimate property holders in cases of dispute).<br /><br /><i><b>"When are you going to address where this glorious system of private property rights based on western political philosophy has got us in terms of tragedy of the commons, pollution, environmental waste and despoilation and, last but not least, a state of a permanent war economy?"</b></i><br /><br />I'm not - because those problems (e.g. tragedy of commons) are a result of the absence of private property rights. That's what "commons" means you daft banana.Mike Faganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-28453017010000172572013-05-07T12:39:35.504+08:002013-05-07T12:39:35.504+08:00No racism in Locke? Really? Maybe not his direct i...No racism in Locke? Really? Maybe not his direct intention but as I stated earlier his ideas make fertile grounds for constructing the case for appropriating land. I found these comments on an article about that Chapter 5 quite interesting:<br /><br />"Locke observes that the poorest day laborer in England, living under a private ownership system, is better off than a chieftain, the best off person, in a North American tribe that lives under something closer to a free use system and that does not countenance private ownership, and this even though North America is far richer in natural resources than in England."<br /> <br />... and ...<br /><br />"Locke also stipulates in paragraph 31 that the right to appropriate and use the things of the earth does not include a right to “spoil or destroy” or let things go to waste. Locke does not elaborate, but we might wonder: if there is nonscarcity, and condition C holds, why should not my liberty to live as I choose include a liberty to appropriate land and leave it in its natural state? Maybe I just like to watch leaves and fruit rot and fall. One might also wonder what limits the stringency of the No-Waste rule. Locke seems to have in mind that if hunter-gatherers claim a vast expanse<br />of land as theirs to roam in, this counts as waste, relative to the claim of one who wants to farm the land and make it more productive."<br /><br />Finally, at what point do we stop to address the euro-centric nature of Locke's philosophy, situated within the Judeo-Christian tradition and perspective, and how that does not take account of the possibility that there are multiple other notions of land sharing, use and portioning - some fair and some less so, that have functioned for thousands of years without ever needing someone to write a name of a piece of paper that says this is theirs? When are you going to address where this glorious system of private property rights based on western political philosophy has got us in terms of tragedy of the commons, pollution, environmental waste and despoilation and, last but not least, a state of a permanent war economy?Ben Gorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07215358295386075741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-15035726689541007452013-05-07T12:12:43.725+08:002013-05-07T12:12:43.725+08:00I don't fail to see it when it is done by righ...I don't fail to see it when it is done by right-wing parties. All of the cases in Taiwan where this has happened - or at least those which I have criticized - were all done by the KMT (either central or local governments). If there is a difference it is largely one of extent of application and rhetorical emphasis; opposition to economic freedom and to property rights is a more consistent and core focus of socialist ideology than supposedly "conservative" ideology. <br /><br />On Locke's principle of first appropriation... no. The notion that indigenous people aren't really "people" is just straightforward racism and has nothing to do with Locke's first appropriation principle. In fact Locke's original discussion is more befitting the case of indigenous people than you perhaps realize since it does not depend on superficial points like the existence of formal title deeds and so on. If you had read Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise, you would know this. But you haven't have you? Mike Faganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-3732156667354112412013-05-07T10:57:49.334+08:002013-05-07T10:57:49.334+08:00Without getting into the logic of the arguments it...Without getting into the logic of the arguments itself, I would like to ask why it is that you can so clearly identify property theft, or denial or recognition of property rights, as a core component of left wing ideologies and government praxis but fail to see its historical, extensive and ongoing execution by right wing governments and businesses? You talk of The Left wanting to steal land for the Government but when The Right is doing it suddenly its The State and you disappear the ideology. Property and the right to it and the ability to defend that right is about power, and that power is abused across the political spectrum. <br /><br />Also, would you acknowledge that Locke's principle of first appropriation is deeply problematic in that it has, in different ways, been used as an excuse by colonialists of all races to take over and settle property on the grounds that the indigenous existant people aren't really 'people' (savages can't own land) or 'legitimate owners' of the land (where's yer title deed mate?!) etc Ben Gorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07215358295386075741noreply@blogger.com