har [Music] univ Justice go Michael sandle 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 minimal State Milton fredman 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 a a poor retirement that should be 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 Riders 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 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 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 redistribution now underlying the Libertarians case for the minimal state is a worry about coercion but what's wrong with coercion the libertarian offers this 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 ourselves the fundamental moral fact of self-possession or self- ownership the libertarian argument against redistribution begins with
this fundamental idea that we own ourselves nosak 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 but 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 argument what I would like to do today is 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 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 Sheffield
John who else wants to join other Brave Libertarians who were 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 website objection number 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 than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan objection number two it's not really slavery to tax because at least in a Democratic Society it's 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 course 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 John 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 dollar I mean I'd take a thousand but at some point you have to understand 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 extrapolated from um agreed upon principles that people own themselves 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 extra at and so that also I mean there still exists this institution of like individual philanthropy um Milton Freedman makes this argument so Bill Gates can give to charity if he wants to right um but it would still
be wrong to coers him exactly to meet the needs of the 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 that's okay I guess I could hold add that um there's a difference between needing something and deserving something I mean in ideal Society everyone's needs we 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
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 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 who would like to reply 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 represent who first 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 rul is pointing out actually rul 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 rule is what majority exactly but in a democracy aren't you for democracy yes I'm for democracy but hang on hang on heang on democracy and MOB rule aren't the same thing like mob rule Mar exactly but in in an open Society you
have a recourse to address that through of 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 the 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 W 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 they might take 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 but Alex 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 280 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 de 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 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 about democracy being okay up there 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 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 govern 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 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 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 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 is 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 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 we agree at 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 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 save 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 I think that Society has already been giving been providing 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 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 derived a lot of 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 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 excellent 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 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 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 nosik what are the consequences for a theory of justice and an account of Rights of calling into question the idea of self-possession doeses it mean that we're back to utilitarianism and using people and aggregating preferences and pushing the fat man off the bridge nosac doesn't himself fully develop the idea of self-possession he borrows it from an earlier philosopher John Lock John 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 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 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 [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music]
