This content explores the libertarian argument against income redistribution, primarily focusing on the principle of self-ownership and its implications for taxation and societal obligations. It also delves into counterarguments and challenges to these libertarian tenets.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
[Music]
libertarianism I want to go back to the
arguments for and against the
redistribution of
income but before we do that just one
word about the minimal State Milton
fredman the libertarian
Economist he points out that many of the functions
functions
that we take for granted as properly
belonging to government don't they are
paternalist one example he gives is social
social
security he says it's a good
idea for people to save for their
retirement during their earning years
but it's wrong it's a violation of people's
people's
Liberty for the government to
force everyone
whether they want to or not to put aside
some earnings
today for the sake of their retirement
if people want to take the chance or if
people want to live big today and live a
a a poor
retirement that should be their choice
they should be free to make those
judgments and take those
risks so even Social Security would
still be at odds with the minimal state
that Milton Friedman argued
for it's sometimes thought that
Collective Goods like police protection
and Fire
Protection will inevitably create the
problem of free writers unless they're publicly
provided but there are
ways to prevent Free Riders there are
ways to restrict even seemingly
Collective Goods like fire protection
I read an article a while back about a
private Fire Company the Salem Fire
Corporation in
Arkansas you can sign up with the Salem
Fire corporation pay a yearly
subscription fee and if your house
catches on fire they will come and put
out the
fire but they won't put out everybody's
fire they will only put it out if it's a
fire in the home of a subscriber or if
it starts to spread and to threaten the
home of a subscriber the newspaper
article told the story of a homeowner
who had
subscribed to this company in the
past but failed to renew his
subscription his house caught on fire
the Salem Fire Corporation showed up
with its trucks and watched the House
burn just making sure that it didn't
spread the fire chief was asked well he
was wasn't exactly the fire chief I
guess he was the
CEO he was asked how can you stand by
with fire equipment and allow a person's
home to
burn he replied once we verified there
was no danger to a member's property we
had no choice but to back off according
to our rules if we responded to all
fires he said there would be no
incentive to
subscribe the homeowner in this case
tried to renew his subscription at the
scene of the fire
but the head of the company refused you
can't wreck your car he said and then
buy insurance for it
later so even public goods that we take
for granted as being within the proper
province of government can many of them
in principle be isolated made exclusive
to those who
pay that's all to do with the question
of collective goods and the Libertarians
injunction against paternalism
but let's go back now to the arguments about
about
redistribution now
underlying the Libertarians case for the minimal
minimal
state is a worry about coercion but
what's wrong with
answer to coer
someone to use some person for the sake
of the general
welfare is wrong because it calls into
question the fundamental fact that we own
own
ourselves the fundamental moral fact of
self-possession or self-ownership
redistribution begins with this
fundamental idea that we own ourselves
nosac says that
if the society as a whole can go to Bill
Gates or go to Michael Jordan and tax
away a portion of their
wealth what the society is really
asserting is a collective property right
in Bill Gates or in Michael
Jordan but that violates the fundamental
principle that we belong to
ourselves now we've already heard a
number of of objections to the libertarian
libertarian
argument what I would like to do today
give the Libertarians among us a chance
to answer the
objections that have been raised and
some have been some have already
identified themselves and have agreed to
come and make the case for
libertarianism to reply to the
objections that have been raised so
raise your hand if you are among the
Libertarians who's prepared to stand up
for the theory and respond to the
objections you are Alex Harris Alex
Harris who's been a who's been a star on
the web blog all right Alex come here
stand up come we'll we'll create a
Libertarian Corner over here
and uh who else other
Libertarians who will
join what's your name
John John sheffeld John Sheffield John
who else wants to
join other Brave Libertarians who are
prepared to take on yes what's your name
Julia Roto Julia Roto Julia come join us
over there now while the while team libertarian
Julia John Alex while te team
libertarian is gathering over there let
me just
summarize the main objections that I've
heard in class and on the
one and here I'll I'll come down to I
want to talk to team libertarian over
here so objection number one is that the
poor need the money
more that's an obvious objection a lot
more than uh thanks then
do Bill Gates and Michael
Jordan objection number
two it's not really slavery to
tax because at least in a Democratic
Society is not a slave
holder it's it's Congress it's a
democratic you're smiling Alex already
you're confident you can reply to all of
these so taxation by consent of the
Govern is not coed third some people
have said don't the
successful like Gates owe a debt to
Society for their success that they
repay by paying taxes who who wants to
respond to the first one the poor need
the money more all right and your John
John all right Sean what's here I'll
hold it all right uh the poor need the
money more that's quite obvious um I
could use the money you know I certainly
wouldn't mind if Bill Gates give me a
million dollars I mean I'd take a
thousand but at some point you have to
understand that the benefits of
redistribution of wealth don't justify
the initial violation of the property
right if you look at the argument the
poor need the money more at no point in
that argument do you contradict the fact
that we've exter extrapolated from um
agreed upon principles that people own
themselves we've extrapolated that
people have property rights and so
whether or not it would be a good thing
or a nice thing um or even a necessary
thing for the survival of some people we
don't see that that justifies the
violation of the right that we've
logically extrapolated good and so that
also I mean there still exists this
institution of like individual
philanthropy um Milton Friedman makes
this argument so Bill Gates can give to
charity if he wants to right
uh but it would still be wrong to coer
him exactly to meet the needs of the poor
poor
exactly are the two of you happy with
that reply anything to all right go
ahead Julie I think Julia yes um I think
I could also add okay I guess I could
hold add that um there's a difference
between needing something and deserving
something I mean an ideal Society
everyone's needs be met but here we're
arguing what do we deserve as a society
and yeah and the poor don't
deserve don't deserve the benefits that
would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help
help
them based on what we've come up with
here I don't think you deserve something
like that all right let let me push you
a little bit on that Julia the victims
of Hurricane
Katrina are in desperate need of help
would you say that they don't
deserve help that would come from the
federal government through
taxation okay that's a difficult
question um I think this is a case where
they need help not deserve it but I
think again if you hit a certain level
of requirements to reach meet sustenance
you're going to need help like if you
don't have food or place to live that's
a case of need so need is one thing and
dessert is another exactly all right um
yes going back to the first point that
he made about the property rights of the
individual the property rights are
established and enforced by the
government which
is a democratic government and we have
Representatives who enforce those rights
if you live in a society that operates
under those rules then it should be up
to the government um to decide how uh
those resources that come out through
taxation are distributed because it is
through the consent of the government if
you disagree with it you don't have to
live in that Society where that operates
all right good so and tell me your name
Raul Raul is pointing out actually Raul
is invoking point number two if the
taxation is by the consent of the Govern
it's not coerced it's
legitimate Bill Gates and Michael Jordan
are citizens of the United States they
get to vote for congress they get to
vote their policy convictions just like
everybody else who would like to take
that one on John um basically what the
Libertarians are um objecting to in this
case is the middle 80% deciding what the
top 10% are doing for the bottom 10%
wait wait wait wait John majority don't
you believe in democracy well right but
don't you believe in I mean you say 80%
10% majority majority rules is what the
majority exactly but in a democracy
aren't you for democracy yes I'm for
democracy but hang on hang on hey
democracy and MOB rule aren't the same
thing like mob rule mob rule exactly but
in a in an open Society you have a
recourse to address that through your
representatives and if the majority of
the consent uh of those who are governed
doesn't agree with you then you know you
you're choosing to live in a society and
you have to operate under what the
majority of society concludes all right
Alex on democra uh democracy what about
that the fact that I have won you know
500,000th of a vote for one
representative in Congress uh is not the
same thing as my uh having the ability
to decide for myself how to use my
property rights I'm a drop in the bucket
um and you know well you might you might
lose the vote exactly and I will I mean
I don't have the decision right now of
whether or not to pay taxes if I don't I
get locked in jail um or they tell me to
get out of the country Al
Alex let me make a a small case for
democracy and see what you would say why
can't you we live in a Democratic
Society with freedom of speech why can't
you take to the
hustings persuade your fellow citizens
that taxation is unjust and try to get a
majority I don't think the people should
be uh should have to convince to 80
million others simply in order to
exercise their own rights in order to
not have their self- ownership violated
I think people should be able to do that
without having to convince 280 million
people does that mean you're against
democracy as a whole I no uh I just
believe in a very limited form of
democracy whereby we have a constitution
that severely limits the scope of what
decisions can be made democratically all
right so you're saying that democracy is
fine except where fundamental rights are
involved yes and
I think you could win if you're going on
the hustings let me add one element to
the argument you might
make maybe you could say put aside the
economic debates taxation suppose the
individual right to religious liberty
were at stake then Alex you could say on
the hustings surely you would all agree
that we shouldn't put the right to
individual liberty up to a
vote yeah that's exactly right um
and that's why we have uh Constitutional
Amendments and why we make it so hard to
amend our constitution so you would say
that the right to private
property the right of Michael Jordan to
keep all the money he makes at least to
protect it from
redistribution is the same kind of right
with the same kind of
weight as the right to freedom of speech
the right to religious liberty rights
that should
Trump what the majority wants absolutely
absolutely the reason why we have a
right to free speech is because we have
a right to own ourselves to exercise our
voice uh in any way that we choose all
right good all right so there we all
right who would like to respond to that argument
argument
about democracy being okay up there stand
stand
up um I think comparing religion
economics it's not the same thing the
reason why Bill Gates was able to make
so much money is cuz we live in an
economically and socially stable Society
and if the government didn't provide for
the poorest 10% as you say um through
taxation then we would need more money
for police to prevent crime and so
either way like there would be more
taxes taken away to provide what you
guys call like the ne necessary things
that the government provides what's your
name Anna Anna let me ask you this why
is the fundamental right to religious
liberty different
from the right Alex asserts as a fundamental
fundamental
right to private property and to keep
what I earn what's the difference
between the two because you wouldn't
have um you wouldn't be able to make
money you wouldn't be able to own
property if there wasn't a socially like
if Society wasn't stable and that's
completely different from religion
that's like something personal something
that you can practice on your own in
your own home whereas like me practicing
say my religion is not going to affect
the next person but if I'm poor and I'm
desperate um like I might commit a crime
to feed my family and that can affect
others okay good thank
you would it be wrong for someone to
steal a loaf of bread to
feed uh his starving family is that
wrong I believe that it is uh this is
let's take let's take a quick poll of
the the three of you it you say yes it
is wrong it violates property rights
it's wrong
even to save a starving family I mean
there there are definitely other ways
around that and by justifying no hang on
hang on before you laugh at me
um that didn't work before before
justifying the the act of stealing you
have to look at violating the right that
we've already agreed exists uh the right
of self-possession and the possession of
I mean your own things we agree on
property rights G stealing so property
rights is not the issue all right but so
why is it wrong to steal even to feed
your starving family sort of the the
original argument that I made in the
very in the very first question you
asked the benefits of an action don't
justify don't make the action just do
you want what what would you say Julia
is it all right to steal a loaf of bread
to feed a starving family or to steal a
drug that your your child needs to to
survive I think
I'm okay with that honestly um even from
a Libertarian standpoint I think that
okay saying that you can just take money
arbitrarily from people who have a lot
to to go to this pool of people who need
it but you have an individual Who's
acting on their own behalf to kind of
say themselves I mean I think you said
they from the idea of like
self-possession they're also in charge
of protecting themselves and keeping
themselves alive so therefore even from
a Libertarian standpoint that might be
okay all right that's good that's good
all right what about what about number
three up here isn't it the case that the
successful the
wealthy owe a debt they didn't do that
all by themselves they had to cooperate
with other people that they they owe a
debt to society and that that's
expressed in taxation you want to take
that on Julie okay this one um I believe
that there is not a debt to society in
the sense that how did these people
become wealthy they did something that
Society valued highly think that Society
has already been giving been riding for
them if anything I think it's it's
everything's canceled out they provided
a service to society and Society
responded by somehow they got their
wealth so be Concrete in the case of
Michael Jordan some I I mean to
illustrate your point there were people
who helped him make the money the
teammates the coach people who taught
him how to
play but they you're saying but they've
all been paid for their services exactly
and Society arrived a lot benefit and
pleasure from watching Michael Jordan
play um I think that that's how he paid
his debt to society all right good who
would uh anyone like to take up that point
point
yes um I think that there's a problem
here with that we're assuming that a
person has self-possession when they
live in a society I feel like when you
live in a society you give up that right
I mean technically if I want to
personally go out and kill someone
because they offend me that is
self-possession because I live in a
society I cannot do that I think it's
kind of equivalent to say because I have
more money I have resources that can
save people's lives is it not okay for
the government to take that from me it's
self-possession only to a certain extent
because I'm living in a society where I
have to take account of the people
around me so are you question what's
your name Victoria Victoria are you
questioning the fundamental premise of
self-possession yes I think that you
don't really have self-possession if you
choose to live in a society because you
cannot just discount the people around
you all right I want to quickly get the
response of
um the libertarian team to the last
point the last
Point Builds on well maybe it builds on
Victoria's suggestion that we don't own
ourselves because it
says that Bill Gates is
wealthy that Michael Jordan makes a huge
income isn't holy their own doing it's
the product of a lot of luck and so we
can't claim that they morally deserve
all the money they make who wants to
reply to that Alex uh you certainly
could make the case that um it is not uh
their wealth is not appropriate to the
goodness in their hearts but that's not
really the morally relevant issue the
point is that they have received uh what
they have through the free exchange of
people who have given them um their
Holdings usually in exchange for
providing some other service good enough
uh I want to try to sum up what we've
learned from this discussion but first
let's thank John Alex and Julia for an
job toward the end of the discussion just
just
now Victoria challenged the premise of
this line of reasoning this libertarian
logic maybe she suggested we don't own
ourselves after all
if you
reject the libertarian case against
redistribution there would seem to be an
incentive to break into the libertarian
line of
reasoning at the earliest at the most
modest level which is why a lot of
people disputed that taxation is morally
but what
about the big
claim the premise the big idea
underlying the libertarian
argument is it true that we own
ourselves or can we do without that
idea and still
avoid what Libertarians want to
avoid creating a society and an account of
of
Justice where some people
can be just
used for the sake of other people's
welfare or even for the sake of the general
general
good Libertarians
combat the utilitarian idea of using
people as means for the collective
Happiness by saying the way to put a
stop to that utilitarian logic of using
persons is to resort to the intuitively powerful
powerful
idea that we are the Proprietors of our own
person that's Alex and Julia and John
nosek what are the
consequences for a theory of justice and
an account of Rights of calling into
question the idea of
self-possession does it mean that we're
back to utility arianism and using
people and aggregating preferences and
bridge nosac doesn't
doesn't
himself fully develop the idea of
self-possession he borrows it from an
earlier philosopher John
Lock John Lock
Lock
accounted for the rise of private
property from the state of
nature by a chain of reasoning very
similar to the one that nosic and the Libertarians
Libertarians
use John Lock
said private property
arises because when we mix our
labor with things unknown
things we come to acquire a property
right in those
things and the
reason the reason is that we own our own
own labor and the reason for
that we are the Proprietors the owners
of our own person and so in order to
examine the moral force of the
libertarian claim that we own
ourselves we need to
turn to the English political
philosopher John Lock and examine his
account of private property and self-
ownership and that's what we'll do next time
time [Applause]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
