Monday 5 October 2009

Monday 5 Oct - Arguing with the Prof

One of the blogs I follow is one entitled Rationally Speaking written by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York-Lehman College......
After reading the following article  "The Problem with Libertarianism"

I had the temerity to venture and opinion and raise an issue. I said:-
Hi Prof. Pigliucci,
Thank you for writing this fascinating article which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading. There is a point however I would like to raise, if you would permit me to, and it is this; toward the end of your article you say,

"I don't think you have the right to withdraw a vital resource from another human being, even if in practice you are willing to gift it to them".

Don't I already have this right? Isn't your formulation as good a definition of "private property" in current society as most others? Whilst I admit to being sympathetic toward some libertarian positions I'm not a Libertarian, for many of the same reasons mentioned in your article; however, I fail to see how you can justify this objection to libertarianism. I would argue that this is The One Tenet of libertarianism that is, in various formulations, already a part of the law every country in the World, including the few remaining communist ones. Surely, your statement constitutes an eminently arguable objection toward the existence of private property per se rather than a specific argument against libertarianism.

I await his verdict, will he comment and will I get my arse handed to me on a plate?



UPDATE :- Response From The Prof


MySickBones,

the problem you raise does not distinguish between private property in general and ownership of vital resources. Nobody is arguing that someone has a right to anything you own. But I am arguing that if someone is dying of thirst and you withdraw water from them then you ought to be punished by law.

As for the tragedy of the commons, that to me is one of the strongest arguments for having a government.

No comments: