Otteson's arguments were utterly ridiculous. Unbecoming of a philosopher even, those are arguments I'd normally expect from a random Libertarian on twitter.
The entire premise on which Otteson's argument rests is that there is an additional justificatory burden for redistribution because you're taking what already belongs to someone and giving it to someone else, which is an argument you can only maintain if you think that the current distribution is either the natural or the correct one. This is because all distributions are by their nature defined by state violence. The law presently says it will honor a certain arrangement of property with state violence; to redistribute it, it would not add violence to the system, it would only say it would be now honoring a different arrangement of property with violence. The second arrangement is not more violent than the first. You actually have to make an argument for which distribution would be more just on its merits and there is no higher bar of justification people need to meet if they want a distribution different from the one currently in place.
There seems to be an underlying assumption here that property only really exists because of state violence, but I don't think that is quite true. The threat of violence is definitely necessary for violence, but that violence can be from the property owner or the government. In the case of the government, it seems the most natural interpretation is that the property owner voluntary gives up their right to violence to protect their property in exchange for the government protecting their property. So, the second arrangement does add violence to the system because absent government, the first arrangement of violence to protect property still exists, but the second arrangement doesn't.
@@MIKAEL212345 Property does not exist, though, in the first arrangement. There is nothing stopping the strong from simply taking from the weak, so there is no principle of ownership apart from the personal ability to violently defeat others. The critical question, though, is this: how are disputes over lines of property actually resolved absent government? There is no way to objectively enforce a delineation of property in that arrangement because to do so is in itself the invention of government.
@@VinylTees "Property does not exist, though, in the first arrangement. There is nothing stopping the strong from simply taking from the weak, so there is no principle of ownership apart from the personal ability to violently defeat others. " But isn't this true with government as well? It seems to me that whether it is you defending your property under threat of your personal violence, or whether it is your family's violence, or whether it is a group of people you hired or whether it is government, it is all the same. It is all property in any case. So, I disagree that property doesn't exist absent government "The critical question, though, is this: how are disputes over lines of property actually resolved absent government? There is no way to objectively enforce a delineation of property in that arrangement because to do so is in itself the invention of government." Without government, the dispute resolves with might makes right, but so too in the case with government. Except in that case, instead of the right being who among Person A and Person B has more might, all the might lies with the government, so they are right. I don't really see a difference. Either way, with or without government, all property is is might makes right.
@@MIKAEL212345 I think this is basically not in conflict with my ultimate point, we’re just disagreeing on definitions. To me “property” refers to there being an ordering of ownership based on some sort of principles, those being defended by violence but violence not necessarily being the principle itself. If there is no government, then violence is the only principle and thus I don’t think “property” is the correct descriptor but I suppose you could call it that if you want. I’m saying that if you claim something to be yours in some sort of grand moral sense, that does not actually do much without some mechanism that uses coercion to enforce that claim against other claims including the claim of force. Perhaps the way to put it that’s closest in agreement with what you are saying is that every arrangement of ownership inherently comes with the threat of violence to uphold it, so the question of justice in property relations cannot be whether a given distribution is upheld by the threat of violence since that’s true of literally every distribution.
Going to watch this, but not gonna lie as soon as i saw the notification pop up for this, i sighed that this should even be debated between philosophers; when the moral merit of wealth redistribution is as obvious a moral truth as "you shouldn't kill for fun "!, let's see though after i watch this, perhaps i will recognize that there's more nuance to the position that opposes wealth redistribution.
Great discussion and great hosting, Dustin.
Can’t wait to watch!
Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting this.
Nice discussion, Dustin! This was an amicable exchange.
Nice shirt Dustin!
Thanks so much! Though the answer is obvious: yes! ;)
Can I have some of yours?
Otteson's arguments were utterly ridiculous. Unbecoming of a philosopher even, those are arguments I'd normally expect from a random Libertarian on twitter.
The entire premise on which Otteson's argument rests is that there is an additional justificatory burden for redistribution because you're taking what already belongs to someone and giving it to someone else, which is an argument you can only maintain if you think that the current distribution is either the natural or the correct one. This is because all distributions are by their nature defined by state violence. The law presently says it will honor a certain arrangement of property with state violence; to redistribute it, it would not add violence to the system, it would only say it would be now honoring a different arrangement of property with violence. The second arrangement is not more violent than the first. You actually have to make an argument for which distribution would be more just on its merits and there is no higher bar of justification people need to meet if they want a distribution different from the one currently in place.
There seems to be an underlying assumption here that property only really exists because of state violence, but I don't think that is quite true. The threat of violence is definitely necessary for violence, but that violence can be from the property owner or the government. In the case of the government, it seems the most natural interpretation is that the property owner voluntary gives up their right to violence to protect their property in exchange for the government protecting their property. So, the second arrangement does add violence to the system because absent government, the first arrangement of violence to protect property still exists, but the second arrangement doesn't.
@@MIKAEL212345 Property does not exist, though, in the first arrangement. There is nothing stopping the strong from simply taking from the weak, so there is no principle of ownership apart from the personal ability to violently defeat others. The critical question, though, is this: how are disputes over lines of property actually resolved absent government? There is no way to objectively enforce a delineation of property in that arrangement because to do so is in itself the invention of government.
@@VinylTees "Property does not exist, though, in the first arrangement. There is nothing stopping the strong from simply taking from the weak, so there is no principle of ownership apart from the personal ability to violently defeat others. "
But isn't this true with government as well? It seems to me that whether it is you defending your property under threat of your personal violence, or whether it is your family's violence, or whether it is a group of people you hired or whether it is government, it is all the same. It is all property in any case. So, I disagree that property doesn't exist absent government
"The critical question, though, is this: how are disputes over lines of property actually resolved absent government? There is no way to objectively enforce a delineation of property in that arrangement because to do so is in itself the invention of government."
Without government, the dispute resolves with might makes right, but so too in the case with government. Except in that case, instead of the right being who among Person A and Person B has more might, all the might lies with the government, so they are right. I don't really see a difference. Either way, with or without government, all property is is might makes right.
@@MIKAEL212345 I think this is basically not in conflict with my ultimate point, we’re just disagreeing on definitions. To me “property” refers to there being an ordering of ownership based on some sort of principles, those being defended by violence but violence not necessarily being the principle itself. If there is no government, then violence is the only principle and thus I don’t think “property” is the correct descriptor but I suppose you could call it that if you want. I’m saying that if you claim something to be yours in some sort of grand moral sense, that does not actually do much without some mechanism that uses coercion to enforce that claim against other claims including the claim of force. Perhaps the way to put it that’s closest in agreement with what you are saying is that every arrangement of ownership inherently comes with the threat of violence to uphold it, so the question of justice in property relations cannot be whether a given distribution is upheld by the threat of violence since that’s true of literally every distribution.
@@VinylTees Ahh, I see what you mean now. Yeah, that makes sense then
Going to watch this, but not gonna lie as soon as i saw the notification pop up for this, i sighed that this should even be debated between philosophers; when the moral merit of wealth redistribution is as obvious a moral truth as "you shouldn't kill for fun "!, let's see though after i watch this, perhaps i will recognize that there's more nuance to the position that opposes wealth redistribution.
The former is an inaction (not doing X for reason Y). The latter is an action (doing X for reason Y). That alone suggests there might be nuance.