Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • Funding for this program provided by

  • Additional funding provided by

  • When we finished last time,

  • we were looking at John Stuart Mill's

  • and his attempt

  • to reply

  • to the critics

  • of Bentham's utilitarianism

  • in his book Utilitarianism,

  • Mill tries to show

  • that critics to the contrary, it is possible

  • within utilitarian framework to distinguish between higher and lower

  • pleasures, it is possible to make

  • qualitative distinctions of worth,

  • and we tested of that idea

  • with the Simpsons

  • in the Shakespeare excerpts

  • and the results of our experiment

  • seemed to call into question

  • Mill's distinctions

  • because a great many of you

  • reported

  • that you prefer the Simpsons

  • but that you still consider Shakespeare

  • to be the higher for the worthier pleasure

  • that's the dilemma

  • with which our experiment confronts Mill.

  • what about Mill's

  • attempt to account

  • for especially weighty character

  • of individual rights and justice in chapter five of utilitarianism?

  • he wants to say that individual rights

  • are worthy

  • of special respect

  • in fact he goes so far as to say that justice is the most sacred part

  • and the most incomparably binding part of morality

  • but the same challenge

  • could be put

  • to this part of Mill's defense

  • why

  • is justice

  • the chief part

  • and the most binding part of our morality? well he says because in the long run

  • if we do justice and if we respect rights,

  • society as a whole

  • will be better off in the long run.

  • well what about that?

  • what if we have a case where making an exception and violating individual rights actually will

  • make people

  • better off in the long run is it all right then?

  • to use people?

  • and there's a further

  • objection

  • that could be raised against

  • Mill's case for justice and rights

  • suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run works out as he says it will

  • such that respecting people's rights

  • is a way of making everybody better off in the long run

  • is that the right reason

  • is that the only reason

  • to respect people?

  • if the doctor goes in

  • and yanks the organs from the healthy patient who came in for a checkup

  • to save five lives

  • there would be adverse effects in the long run

  • eventually people would learn about this

  • and would stop going in for checkups

  • is it the right reason

  • is the only reason

  • that you as a doctor

  • won't yanked the organs out of a healthy patient

  • that you think

  • well if I use

  • him in this way

  • in the long run

  • more lives will be lost?

  • or is there another reason

  • having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual

  • and if that reason matters

  • and it's not so clear

  • that even Mill's utilitarianism

  • can take account of it

  • fully to examine these two

  • worries or objections

  • to Mill's defense

  • we need to we need to push further

  • we need to ask

  • in the case of higher or worthier pleasures

  • are there theories of the good life

  • that can provide independent moral standards

  • for the worth of pleasures?

  • if so what do they look like?

  • that's one question

  • in the case of justice and rights

  • if we suspected that Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity or respect for

  • persons that are not, strictly speaking,

  • utilitarian

  • we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories of rights

  • that can explain

  • the intuition

  • which even Mill shares

  • the intuition

  • that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them

  • goes beyond

  • even utility in the long run.

  • today we turn

  • to one

  • of those strong theories of rights

  • strong theories of rights say

  • individuals matter

  • not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose

  • or for the sake of maximizing utility

  • individuals

  • are separate beings with

  • separate lives

  • worthy of respect

  • and so it's a mistake

  • according to strong theories rights, it's a mistake

  • to think about justice or law

  • by just getting up preferences

  • and values

  • the strong rights theory we turn to today

  • is libertarianism

  • libertarianism

  • take individual rights seriously

  • it's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual right

  • is the right to liberty

  • precisely because we are separate individual beings

  • we're not available

  • to any use

  • that the society might

  • desire or devise. precisely because we're individual

  • separate human beings

  • we have a fundamental right to liberty

  • and that means

  • a right

  • to choose freely

  • to live our lives as we please

  • provided we respect other people's rights

  • to do the same

  • that's the fundamental idea

  • Robert Nozick

  • one of the libertarian philosophers we read

  • for this course puts it this way

  • individuals have rights

  • so strong and far-reaching are these rights

  • that they raise the question of what, if anything

  • the state may do.

  • so what does libertarianism say

  • about

  • the role of government

  • or of the state

  • well there are three things that most

  • modern states do

  • that

  • on the libertarian theory of rights

  • are illegitimate

  • are unjust

  • one of them

  • is paternalist legislation

  • that's passing laws that protect people from themselves

  • seat belt laws for example

  • or motorcycle helmet laws

  • the libertarian says

  • it may be a good thing if people wear seat belts,

  • but that should be up to them

  • and the state

  • the government

  • has no business coercing them, us

  • to wear seat belts

  • by law

  • its coercion

  • so no paternalist legislation

  • number one. number two

  • no morals legislation

  • many laws

  • try to promote

  • the virtue of citizens

  • or try to give expression

  • to the moral

  • values

  • of the society as a whole.

  • libertarians say that's also

  • a violation of the right to liberty

  • take the example of, well a classic example of legislation offered in the name of promoting

  • morality traditionally,

  • have been laws that prevent

  • sexual intimacy

  • between

  • gays and lesbians

  • the libertarian says

  • nobody else is harmed

  • nobody else's rights are violated

  • so the state should get all of the business entirely

  • of trying to promote virtue

  • or to enact morals legislation.

  • and the third kind of law

  • or policy

  • it is ruled out

  • on the libertarian philosophy

  • is any taxation

  • or other policy

  • that serves the purpose

  • of redistributing income or wealth

  • from the rich to the poor

  • redistribution

  • is a kind of, if you think about it

  • says libertarianists, a kind of coercion

  • what it amounts to is theft

  • by the state

  • or by the majority

  • if we're talking about a democracy

  • from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money

  • now Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be a minimal state

  • that taxes people for the sake of

  • what everybody needs

  • the national defense

  • police force

  • judicial system to enforce contracts and

  • property rights

  • but that's it.

  • Now I want to get your reactions

  • to this third

  • feature

  • of the libertarian view

  • I want to see

  • who among you

  • agree with that idea and who disagree

  • and why

  • and just to make a concrete and to see what's at stake

  • consider the distribution of wealth

  • in the united states.

  • The united states is among the most

  • In-egalitarian societies as far as distribution of wealth,

  • of all the advanced democracies

  • now is this just

  • or unjust

  • well what is the libertarian say

  • the libertarian says

  • you can't know just from the facts

  • I just given you

  • you can't know whether that distribution

  • it's just or unjust.

  • you can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or a result

  • whether it's just or unjust

  • you have to know how it came to be

  • you can't just look at the end state or the result

  • you have to look at two principles

  • the first he calls justice in acquisition

  • or in initial holdings

  • and what that means simply is

  • did people get the things they use

  • to make their money

  • fairly

  • so we need to know

  • was there justice in the initial holdings, did they steal the land or the factory or the

  • goods that enabled them to make all that money?

  • if not,

  • if they were entitled to whatever it was that enabled them to

  • gather the wealth

  • the first principle is met.

  • the second principle is

  • did the distribution arise

  • from the operation of free consent

  • people buying and trading on the market

  • as you can see the libertarian idea of justice

  • corresponds to a free market

  • conception of justice

  • provided

  • people

  • got what they used

  • fairly

  • didn't steal it

  • and provided

  • the distribution results from the free choice of individuals' buying and selling things

  • the distribution is just

  • and it's not

  • it's unjust.

  • so let's, in order to fix

  • ideas for this discussion, take

  • an actual

  • example

  • who's wealthiest person

  • in the united states, wealthiest person in the world

  • Bill Gates, it is, you're right. here he is.

  • you'd be happy too

  • now, what's his net worth?

  • anybody have any idea?

  • that's a big number

  • during the Clinton years remember there was a controversy, donors, big campaign contributors

  • were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the white house

  • I think if you contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above

  • someone figured out

  • at the median contribution

  • that got you invited to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom

  • Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night for the next sixty six

  • thousand years

  • somebody else figured out

  • how much does he get paid on an hourly basis

  • and

  • so they figured out since he began Microsoft

  • suppose the worked about fourteen hours per day

  • a reasonable guess

  • and you calculate

  • this is net wealth

  • it turns out

  • that his rate of

  • pay

  • is

  • over

  • a hundred and fifty dollars not

  • per hour,

  • not per minute

  • a hundred and fifty dollars, more than a hundred and fifty dollars per second

  • which means

  • which means

  • that if on his way to the office

  • Gates noticed a hundred-dollar bill on the street

  • it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up

  • now most of you would say

  • someone that wealthy

  • surely we can tax them

  • to meet

  • the pressing needs

  • of people who lack of education or lack enough to eat

  • or lack decent housing

  • they need it more than he does

  • and if you were a utilitarian

  • what would you do? What tax policy would you have

  • you'd redistribute in a flash wouldn't you

  • because you would know

  • being a good utilitarian

  • that taking some, a small amount, he's scarcely going

  • to notice it, but it will make a

  • huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare of those at the bottom

  • but remember

  • the libertarian theory says

  • we can't just add up

  • and aggregate preferences and satisfactions

  • that way

  • we have to respect

  • persons

  • and if he earned that money fairly

  • without violating anybody else's rights

  • in accordance with the two principles of justice in acquisition and justice in transfer, then

  • it would be wrong

  • it would be a form of coercion

  • to take it away

  • Michael Jordan is not as wealthy Bill Gates

  • but he did pretty well for himself

  • you want to see Michael Jordan?

  • there he is

  • his income alone

  • in one year was thirty one million dollars

  • and then he made another forty seven million dollars in endorsements for Nike and other

  • companies

  • so his income

  • was

  • in one year seventy eight million

  • the require him to pay

  • say a third of his earnings

  • to the government

  • to support good causes

  • like food and health care and housing and education for the poor

  • that's coercion

  • that's unjust

  • that violates his

  • rights

  • and that's why

  • redistribution is wrong.

  • Now, how many agree with that argument

  • agree with the libertarian argument that

  • redistribution for the sake of

  • trying to help the poor is wrong?

  • and how many disagree with that argument?

  • all right let's begin with those who disagree?

  • what's wrong with the libertarian case against

  • redistribution?

  • I think these people like Michael Jordan have received,

  • we're talking about working within the society

  • they received a larger

  • gift from the society and they have a larger obligation

  • in return to give that through distribution

  • you know you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as someone who works

  • you know

  • doing laundry twelve hours, fourteen hours a day

  • but he's receiving more

  • I don't think it's fair to say that you know

  • it's all on his

  • inherent hard work. All right

  • let's hear from defenders of libertarianism

  • why would it be wrong in principle

  • to tax the rich to help the poor.

  • My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.

  • I've since bought a hundred skate boards and live in a society the hundred people

  • I'm the only one with skateboards suddenly everyone decides they want skateboard they

  • come into the house to take my, they take ninety nine of my skateboards. I think that is unjust

  • now I think in certain circumstances, it

  • becomes necessary to overlook injustice and perhaps condone that injustice

  • as in the case of the cabin boy being killed

  • for food if people are on the verge of dying

  • perhaps it is necessary

  • to overlook that injustice but I think it's important to keep in mind

  • they were still committing injustice

  • by taking people's belonging or assets. Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan say at thirty

  • three percent tax rate

  • for good causes

  • to feed the hungry

  • is theft

  • I think it's unjust, yes I do believe it's theft, but perhaps it is necessary

  • to condone that theft.

  • But it's theft. Yes.

  • why is it theft, Joe?

  • because

  • why is it like your collection of skateboards?

  • it's theft because

  • or at least

  • in my opinion and by the libertarian opinion

  • he earned that money fairly

  • and

  • it belongs to him and so take it from him

  • is by definition theft.

  • alright let's see if there is

  • who wants to reply to Joe?

  • yes go ahead

  • I don't think this necessarily a case in which you have ninety nine skateboards and

  • the government, or you have a hundreds skateboards and the government is taking ninety nine of them

  • it's like the

  • it's like you have more skateboards than there are

  • days in the year, you have more skateboards than you're going to be able to use your entire lifetime

  • and the government is taking

  • part of those. And

  • I think that if you're operating in society

  • in which the government

  • in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth

  • that that allows for people to amass so much wealth

  • that people who haven't started from

  • the equal footing in our hypothetical situation,

  • that doesn't exist in our real society,

  • get undercut for the rest of their lives.

  • so you're worried that if there isn't some degree of redistribution if some are left at

  • the bottom

  • there will be no genuine equality of opportunity

  • alright. the idea that taxation is theft,

  • Nozick takes that point one step further

  • he agrees that it's theft

  • he's more demanding than Joe, Joe says it is theft,

  • maybe in an extreme case it's justified

  • maybe a parent

  • is justified in stealing a loaf of bread

  • to feed his or her hungry family

  • so Joe is a what? What would you call yourself a compassionate quasi libertarian?

  • Nozick says, if you think about it

  • taxation

  • amounts

  • to the taking of earnings

  • in other words it means

  • taking

  • the fruits

  • of my labor

  • but if the state has the right

  • to take my earnings or the fruits of my labor,

  • isn't that morally the same

  • as according to the state

  • the right

  • to claim

  • a portion of my labor?

  • So taxation actually

  • is morally equivalent

  • to forced labor

  • because forced labor

  • involves the taking

  • of my leisure, my time, my efforts

  • just as taxation

  • takes the earnings

  • that I make

  • with my labor.

  • And so for Nozick

  • and for the libertarians

  • taxation for redistribution

  • is theft as Joe says,

  • but not only thing left

  • it is morally equivalent

  • to laying claim

  • to certain hours

  • of a person's life

  • and labor

  • so it's morally equivalent to forced

  • labor

  • if the state has a right to claim the fruits of my labor

  • that implies that it really

  • has an entitlement

  • to my labor itself

  • and what is forced labor?

  • forced labor

  • Nozick points out

  • it's what? it's slavery

  • because

  • if I don't have the right, the sole right

  • to my own labor

  • then

  • that's really to say that the government or the

  • political community

  • is a part owner in me

  • and what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me?

  • if you think about it

  • it means

  • that I am a slave

  • that I don't own myself

  • so what this line of reasoning brings us to

  • is the fundamental

  • principle

  • that underlies the libertarian case for rights

  • what is that principle?

  • it's the idea

  • that I own myself

  • it's the idea

  • of self-possession

  • if you want to take rights seriously

  • if you don't want to just regard people as collections of preferences

  • the fundamental moral idea

  • to which you will be lead

  • is the idea

  • that we are the owners or the proprietors of our own person

  • and that's why

  • utilitarian goes wrong

  • and that's why it's wrong to yank the organs from that healthy patient

  • you're acting as if

  • that patient belongs to you or to the community

  • but we belong to ourselves

  • and that's the same reason

  • that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves

  • or to tell us how to live

  • to tell us what virtues

  • we should be governed by

  • and that's also why it's wrong

  • to tax

  • the rich to help the poor even for good causes even to help those who are displaced by the

  • hurricane

  • Katrina

  • ask them to give charity

  • but if you tax them

  • it's like forcing them to labor

  • could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip next

  • week's games and go down to help the people

  • displaced by hurricane Katrina?

  • morally it's the same

  • so the stakes are very high

  • so far we've heard some objections

  • to the libertarian argument

  • but if you want to reject it

  • you have to break into this chain of reasoning which goes

  • taking my earnings

  • is like

  • taking my labor

  • but taking my labor

  • is making me a slave

  • and if you

  • disagree with that

  • you must believe in the principle of self-possession

  • those who

  • disagree

  • gather your objections

  • and we'll begin with them next time.

  • anyone like to take up that point? yes

  • I feel like when you live in a society

  • you give up that right, I mean technically, if I want to personally

  • and kill someone because they offend me, that is self-possession. Because

  • I live in a society I cannot do that

  • 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.

  • we were talking last time about 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 state

  • Milton Friedman the

  • libertarian economist

  • he points out

  • that many of the functions

  • that we take for granted

  • as properly belonging to government, don’t

  • they are paternalist. one example he gives is 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 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 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

  • inevitably create the problem of free riders unless their 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 this 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 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 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 libertarian's injunction against

  • paternalism

  • let's go back now to the

  • arguments about redistribution

  • now, underlying

  • the libertarian's case

  • for the minimal states

  • is a worry about coercion, but what's wrong with coercion?

  • libertarian offers this

  • answer to coerce 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 ourselves

  • the fundamental moral fact

  • of self-possession or self ownership

  • the libertarian's argument against redistribution

  • begins with this fundamental idea that we own ourselves

  • Nozick says

  • that if

  • this is 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 objections

  • to the libertarian argument

  • what I would like to do today

  • it's to give

  • the libertarians among us

  • a chance to answer the objections

  • that have been raised

  • and some have been some

  • have already identified themselves 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 response to the objections

  • you are? Alex Harris. Alex Harris who

  • he's been a star on the web blog, alright Alex

  • come here stand-up

  • we'll create a libertarian corner over here

  • and who else other libertarians

  • who will join

  • what's you're name? John.

  • John Sheffield, John, and who else wants to join

  • other brave libertarians who are prepared

  • to take on yes

  • what's your name

  • Julia Roto, Julia come

  • join us over there

  • now while the,

  • team libertarian

  • Julia, John, Alex

  • while team libertarian is gathering over there

  • let me just summarize

  • the main objections that I've heard

  • in class and on the web site

  • objection number one

  • and here I'll come down too, 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

  • than do

  • Bill Gates and Michael Jordan

  • objection number two

  • it's not really slavery to tax

  • because

  • at least in a democratic society

  • there's not a slave holder

  • it's congress

  • it's a democratic, you're smiling Alex, you're already a confident you can reply to all of

  • these

  • so taxation by consent of the governed is not coerced

  • third

  • some people have said don't be successful

  • like Gates

  • owe a debt to society for their success that they repay by paying taxes

  • who wants to respond to the first one the poor need the money more all right

  • you're John

  • John all right John

  • what's the answer, here I'll hold it.

  • alright

  • the poor need the money more, that's quite obvious

  • I could use money you know I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates gave 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 you contradict the fact that we extrapolated from 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

  • 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 logically extrapolated

  • and so that also I mean

  • they're still exist this institution of

  • of individual philanthropy, Milton Freidman makes this argument

  • alright so Bill gates can give to charity if he wants to

  • but it would still be wrong to coerce him

  • exactly

  • to meet the needs of the poor.

  • are the two of you happy with that reply?

  • anything to add? alright

  • Go ahead, Julie? Julia, ya, I think I could also ass

  • I guess I could add that

  • there's a difference between needing something and deserving something. I mean in an ideal society everyone's

  • needs would be met

  • but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society

  • and the poor don't

  • deserve

  • the benefits that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help

  • them. Based on what we've come up with here, I don't think

  • you deserve something

  • like that. Alright 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

  • the help that would come

  • from the federal government through taxation.

  • okay that's a, difficult question

  • I think

  • this is a case where they need help not

  • deserve it, but

  • I think again if you hit a certain level of

  • of requirements to reach 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

  • who would like to reply?

  • Come back to that 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

  • to decide

  • how

  • those resources that come about through taxation are distributed because it's through the consent of the governed

  • and if you disagree with it

  • you don't have to live in that society where

  • that operate. Alright, 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 governed

  • it's not coerced

  • it's legitimate

  • Bill Gates

  • and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United States, they get to vote for congress and they

  • get to

  • vote

  • their policy convictions

  • just like everybody else

  • who would like to take that one on? John?

  • Basically what the libertarians are

  • objecting to in this case is the middle eighty percent deciding what the top ten percent

  • are doing for the bottom ten percent with wait wait wait,

  • John, majority, don't you believe in democracy?

  • well right but at some point,

  • don't you believe in the, I mean, you say eighty percent ten percent, majority, majority

  • rule is what? majority!

  • exactly but, in a democracy aren't you for democracy? Yes I'm for democracy but, hang on,

  • democracy and mob rule are not the same thing. Mob rule? mob rule. But in an open society, you have recourse

  • to address that through your representatives

  • and if the majority of the consent

  • of those who are govern doesn't agree with you

  • then you know, you're choosing to live in the society

  • and you have to operate under what

  • the majority of the society concludes

  • Alright, Alex, on democracy, what about that? The fact

  • I have, you know, one five hundred thousandth of a vote for one representative in congress

  • is not the same thing as my

  • having the ability to decide for myself

  • how to use my property rights. I'm

  • a drop in the bucket

  • and you know while.. You might lose the vote

  • exactly and they might take? and I will, I mean I don't have

  • the decision right now of whether not to pay taxes if I don't get locked in jail or

  • they tell me to get out of the country. Now Alex,

  • let me make 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 that people should be, should have to convince two hundred and eighty 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

  • two hundred eighty million people. Does that mean you're against democracy as a whole?

  • No I just believe in a very limited from democracy whereby we have a constitution that

  • severely limits

  • the scope of what decisions

  • can be made democratically

  • Alright so you're saying that democracy is fine

  • except where fundamental rights are involved, 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

  • and that's why we have 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 that 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 the reason why we have a right to free speech is because we have a right

  • to own ourselves, to exercise our voice

  • in any way that we choose.

  • alright, good.

  • alright who would like to respond to that argument about

  • democracy being, alright there stand up

  • I think comparing religion and economics, it's not the same thing

  • the reason why Bill Gates was able to make so much money is because we live in an economically

  • and socially stable

  • society

  • and if the government didn't provide for the poorest ten percent

  • as you say,

  • through taxation then

  • we would need more money for police to prevent

  • crime and so either way there would be more taxes taken away to provide what you guys calling

  • and then 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

  • the right Alex asserts

  • as a fundamental right

  • to private property

  • and to keep what I earn

  • what's the difference between the two?

  • because you wouldn't

  • have

  • you wouldn't be able

  • to make money, you wouldn't

  • be able to own property

  • there wasn't socially like if society wasn't stable.

  • and that's very different from religion that's like something personal, something you can practice on your own

  • in your own your own home

  • whereas like me practicing my religion isn't going to affect another person, whereas if I'm poor

  • and I'm desperate,

  • I might commit a crime to feed my family

  • and that can affect others. Okay thank you

  • would it be wrong for someone

  • to steal a loaf of bread

  • to feed

  • his starting family

  • is that wrong?

  • I believe that it is. let's take let's take a quick poll of the three of you, you say yes it is wrong.

  • it violates

  • property rights it's wrong.

  • even to save the starving family? I mean there there definitely other ways around that

  • and by justifying

  • now hang on hang on before you laugh at me

  • before

  • justifying the act

  • of stealing

  • you have to look at

  • violating the right that we've already agreed exists, the right of self-possession and the

  • possession of

  • I mean, your own things we agree on property right. Alright, we agree it's stealing

  • so property rights are not the issue, alright so why is it wrong to steal even to feed your starving family?

  • sort of 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

  • well what would you say Julia?

  • Is it right to

  • steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family or to steal a drug that

  • your child needs to

  • to survive

  • I think I'm okay with that honestly, even from the libertarian standpoint, I think that

  • okay saying

  • that you can just take money arbitrarily from people who have a lot 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 save themselves

  • I think you said

  • from the idea of self-possession they are also in charge of protecting themselves and keeping themselves alive

  • so therefore even from a libertarian standpoint that might be okay

  • Alright that's good, that's good. Alright

  • what about number three up here

  • isn't it the case

  • that the

  • successful, the wealthy

  • owe a debt, they did do that all by themselves they had to cooperate with other people

  • that they owe a debt to society and that that's expressed in taxation. DO you want to take that on Julie?

  • okay this one, I believe that

  • there is not a debt to society in a sense that how did people become wealthy? they did something that society valued

  • highly

  • I think that society has already been providing for them

  • if anything I think it's everything is cancelled out, they provided a service to society

  • and society responded by somehow they got their wealth

  • well be concrete, in the case of Michael Jordan, some,

  • I mean to illustrate your point

  • there were people who helped him make money, teammates

  • the coach

  • people taught him how to play,

  • but those you're saying, but they've all been paid for their services

  • exactly

  • and society derived a lot of benefit and pleasure from watching Michael Jordan play

  • and I think that that's how he paid his debt to society

  • good, who would, anyone like to take up that point?

  • I think that there's a problem here

  • 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 if I wanted

  • personally

  • to 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 an equivalent to say,

  • because I have more money I have resources that that could 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 people around me. so are you questioning, 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.

  • Alright I want to quickly get a response

  • of

  • 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 wholly

  • 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?

  • You certainly could make the case that

  • it is not, that their wealth is not appropriate to the goodness of their hearts

  • but that's not really the more the morally relevant issue. the point is that

  • they have received what they have through the free exchange of people who have given them

  • their holdings usually in exchange for providing some other service.

  • good enough

  • I want to try to sum up what we've learned from this discussion but first let's thank

  • John Alex and Julia for a really wonderful job,

  • toward the end of the discussion 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 equivalent to forced labor

  • 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 of avoid

  • what libertarians want to avoid

  • creating a society and an account 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 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 idea

  • that we are the proprietors of our own person

  • That's Alex and Julia and John,

  • and Robert Nozick

  • 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 utilitarianism

  • and using people

  • and aggregating preferences

  • and pushing the fat man off the bridge?

  • Nozick doesn't

  • himself,

  • fully develop the idea of self-possession he borrows it from an earlier philosopher

  • John Locke

  • John Locke

  • accounted

  • for the rise of private property

  • from the state of nature

  • by a chain of reasoning very similar to the one that Nozick and the libertarians use

  • John Locke said

  • private property arises

  • because

  • when we mix our labor

  • with things

  • unowned things

  • we come to acquire a property right in those things

  • the reason?

  • the reason is that we own our own labor

  • and the reason for that

  • we're the proprietors the owners

  • of our own person

  • and so in order to examine

  • the moral force of the libertarian claim that that we own ourselves

  • we need to turn

  • to the English political philosopher John Locke

  • and examine his account of private property

  • and self ownership

  • and that's what we'll do next time

  • don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice

  • join the conversation, take a pop quiz,

  • watch lectures you've missed, and learn a lot more. Visit justiceharvard.org,

  • it's the right thing to do.

  • funding for this program is provided by

  • Additional funding provided by

Funding for this program provided by

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it