Errors in Lockean/Georgist theory...

[ladyattis]

Basically this is my assessment of the problems related to the theory in that each portion of said theory seems good in principle, but when you draw out its conclusions it is not only impossible to implement, it is absurd in its form.

First, lets look at the concept of rights. Locke and George here agree that rights are a natural extension of being human, but I don't know exactly if Henry George would have thought God gave man[kind] rights or not, so I won't assume as such for the sake of the argument. Now, if you accept this proposal that rights are natural, in that they come from man[kind]'s nature, then you have a couple problems. The first problem is that how you know each and every claimed right indeed comes from man[kind]'s nature? What is the test to make sure? Obviously any system of logic that makes this claim has to extend outside the tradition bounds of the 'analytical' into the 'synthetic' to find facts and proof for said claim, but neither Locke nor George have ever made such an empirical case study. All they have done is claim we have rights inherent, and without any empirical proof. And without empirical proof, one cannot plead to Nature for ones given proposal/argument.

The second problem with natural rights, so-called, is that if it follows humans can have them, then why not non-humans, especially irrational non-humans [cats, dogs, bugs, birds, etc]? At face value this does not seem like a problem, but if you consider the only difference between humans and non-humans being morphological [shape/size/weight], then like Peter Singer would say, it is "specie-ism," in that it's analogically the same as racism, sexism, and any other social prescription of one group of individuals being superior to another group based on force. Some people might actually accept this conclusion, others will clearly draw up full refutations, which are pretty much iron clad, but in doing such a refutation will refute the natural rights proposition as well.

Now that doesn't mean rights don't exist as part of the human condition, because they still can, but you can't call them natural anymore. Nor can you make the claim they are inherent, rather they are contextual.

Second, the problem of labor creating wealth. This all seems fairly good and decent on the face of it, but there are problems here too with the theory. The biggest problem is that Locke formulated the theory of labor created wealth based upon the idea that some how when one 'labors' to get something s/he 'mixes' that labor with that part of Nature s/he is trying to obtain. How can labor even mix with anything? It can't just as my typing on this PC here cannot mix that effort with this article that I am writing. As much as I put so much mental and physical effort to produce this item, it is not made valuable automatically by my efforts. It is made valuable based on various other factors that are solely independent of labor. Just this fact alone that no matter how hard one works for said item or portion of Nature they're seeking to obtain, their labor will not change the inherent value [functional, aesthetic, etc]. of that given portion/item. For the individual doing the labor, the value is set one way, but when s/he sells it another, the buyer sets another price and demands it at that price. Somewhere in the middle, as it were, the price will be set, neither purely the buyer's assessment nor the claim made by the seller will be met. The price in this case is set approximating a middle value, possibly arbitrary since both members of this exchange don't have to set any rational ground rules for the exchange.

This point here doesn't imply that wealth is not created, rather that wealth is not valuated the same way. Labor still creates wealth, but it doesn't set the price, nor it does it exclude that certain things are inherently valuable like water. Go to any border Sahara town, and you'll see that water will trade more effectively than gold nuggets or diamond gems. Thus proving my point again, valuation is not set by labor, value is set by other factors entirely.

Ultimately, these two points alone are enough to topple the rest of the theory, but I would like to continue on in another post. So, if anyone wants to reply please do so in PM, so I can continue this piece with a level of coherence. Thanks.

-- Bridget

[FrankChodorov]

First, lets look at the concept of rights. Locke and George here agree that rights are a natural extension of being human, but I don't know exactly if Henry George would have thought God gave man[kind] rights or not, so I won't assume as such for the sake of the argument.

he probably would agree with Jefferson and call it "nature's god"...

Now, if you accept this proposal that rights are natural, in that they come from man[kind]'s nature, then you have a couple problems. The first problem is that how you know each and every claimed right indeed comes from man[kind]'s nature? What is the test to make sure? Obviously any system of logic that makes this claim has to extend outside the tradition bounds of the 'analytical' into the 'synthetic' to find facts and proof for said claim, but neither Locke nor George have ever made such an empirical case study. All they have done is claim we have rights inherent, and without any empirical proof. And without empirical proof, one cannot plead to Nature for ones given proposal/argument.

The two aspects of human nature that the philosopher John Locke used to establish a universal ethic

are independence and equality. Locke wrote: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

This "law of nature" or natural moral law is formulated by rules that make up the universal ethic. The ethic assigns the moral values of good, evil, and neutral to all human acts. But where do these values come from? The premise of independence, that persons think and feel independently, implies that values are ultimately subjective, coming from individual desires and feelings. The premise of human equality gives these values an equal status.

The universal ethic's rule for moral goodness is that acts which are welcomed benefits to others are morally good. Helping another person the way that person wants to be helped is a good act. If you think you are doing something for another's own good, but he does not think it's good for him, then by the u.e., it is not good.

The rule for evil is more complicated, because there are two types of acts that individuals feel are personally bad. One is an offense that exists within the subject's mind, and the other is an invasion into the person's body and possessions, thus involving more than just his mind. For example, if someone wears a T-shirt with a message that some find displeasing, that is an offense, since whether one is pleased or displeased depends on one's personal viewpoint. In contrast, if one person shoots a bullet into another person's body, that is an unwelcomed invasion. For the universal ethic, only unwelcomed invasions are evil, while mere offenses are morally neutral. Also, acts which only affect yourself are either neutral or good, but not evil, since there is no invasion into another's domain.

We now have the three basic rules of the universal ethic:

Acts are good if and only if they are welcomed benefits.
Acts are evil if they coercively harm others as invasions.
All other acts are neutral.

A society has complete liberty or freedom if its laws prohibit and punish evil as prescribed by the universal ethic, and if any act which is good or neutral is allowed but not required. The u.e. also tells us what our human or natural rights are: we have the right to do anything that does not coercively harm others, and the right to be free from coercive harm.

We have a property right to our own bodies and lives, since if some control others, this violates the premise of equality and becomes an invasion. This self-ownership right implies a property right to our labor and the products of our labor. But self-ownership does not extend to what labor does not produce: natural resources. The premise of equality implies that all persons have an equal property right to the benefits of nature other than our own bodies. These benefits are manifested in the rent that folks bid to use nature. So equality is satisfied only if communities share the rents due to nature and community. The universal ethic therefore prescribes a fiscal policy of public and community revenue from rent, along with voluntary user fees. The taxation of labor and produced goods is an invasion into what properly belongs to the producers.

For social policy and civil liberties, the universal ethic prescribes that there should be no law where there is no victim of an invasion, thus no victimless crimes. Everyone should be free to do what she or he wants so long as they do not coercively harm others. There should also be no restriction on honest and peaceful enterprise.

The second problem with natural rights, so-called, is that if it follows humans can have them, then why not non-humans, especially irrational non-humans

because they can not reason therefore inorder to partcipate in the universal ethic one must have the human capacity to act equally moral.

This point here doesn't imply that wealth is not created, rather that wealth is not valuated the same way. Labor still creates wealth, but it doesn't set the price, nor it does it exclude that certain things are inherently valuable like water.

you are trying to conflate the labor theory of ownership with the flawed labor theory of value in the minds of the reader, as well, as exchange value for use value...George also determined that there was something called "value from obligation"

Locke and George were simply trying to logically apply the right of self-ownership (the orginal property right) to that which you create via the natural extension of self - your labor.

so historically labor is the basis of property rights...

there are two aspects of property then.

1. labor-based property
2. law-based property (privilege)

if you make #2 absolute then simple logic dictates that #1 has to be made conditional...this is what I object to and the reason why most all libertarians are in violation of their own fundamental tenet - the absolute right of self-ownership.

[Braddogg]

Mr./Ms. Bridget, you are some sick kind of masochist.