tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post696471399739622177..comments2023-10-31T00:46:35.316+13:00Comments on Anti-Dismal: Why support private property?Paul Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-52793520118079498842009-04-17T19:42:00.000+12:002009-04-17T19:42:00.000+12:00I like Hohfeld's distinction (described here) betw...I like Hohfeld's distinction (described <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#2.1" REL="nofollow">here</A>) between liberties and claims. A liberty is something you have no duty not to do, a claim is something another person has a duty to do or not do to you. <br /><br />If we take this definition, perfect liberty would be the Hobbesian Jungle. Claim rights over property or your own body would necessarily reduce liberty by imposing duties - don't kill another person or go on their land without permission - but would also increase freedom as we commonly think of it (and negative liberty in Berlin's sense) by increasing the things you can do without being bothered by others.Brad Taylorhttp://bradtaylor.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-8919032982061983602009-04-17T14:52:00.000+12:002009-04-17T14:52:00.000+12:00Fair point Brad. So how would you define liberty? ...Fair point Brad. So how would you define liberty? I will go with Isaiah Berlin and negative liberty: "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'." Any better ideas?Paul Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-750597185687510272009-04-17T13:50:00.000+12:002009-04-17T13:50:00.000+12:00I think it depends entirely on how you define 'lib...I think it depends entirely on how you define 'liberty'. It's a pretty ambiguous word.Brad Taylorhttp://bradtaylor.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-83787544594391963112009-04-17T10:57:00.000+12:002009-04-17T10:57:00.000+12:00You make the case very well. I think though, and I...You make the case very well. I think though, and I think I may have mentioned this in comments in the original post, that you have to be careful with conflating positive consequences generally with positive consequences for liberty.<br /><br />It may be that private property prevents authoritarian Governments encroaching on our freedom, but whether or not it provides necessary incentives (should be/ is probably irrelevant to a pure 'liberty maximiser', if such a person exists, and perhaps depending on how they define liberty.<br /><br />I agree with you that consequences have to be taken into account, and I think private property is a good example for why that should be.TMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18414904167369049978noreply@blogger.com