Re: The Issue Again...
[ QUOTE ]
What is a "property rights based morality"?
[/ QUOTE ]
When things are deemed just or unjust by evaluating whether individuals have 100% control over their own property or not. ACers who take this stance believe that it is "natural" that one owns their own body/mind - no one else can make decisions about how to use that body/mind - that by choosing to improve something (mixing one's body/labor with land), one can have legitimate ownership over it.
They also assert that 100% respect for property rights means that all transactions are entered into voluntarily. (Any coercion over property would be less than 100% respect for property rights). These voluntary transactions are moral and just to the extent that they remain voluntary (you pissing in my lake is not moral, me pissing in my lake is). These voluntary transactions also happen to be the basis for a truly free market.
Luckily, the free market also happens to be the best way to get to an optimal outcome regarding allocation and use decisions and incentivize innovation and efficiency. Therefore - by basing all economic relationships on respect for property rights we end up with the best of all worlds - a free and just society (if it wasn't free it wouldn't be just, so redundant there), maximized efficiency, and more optimal outcomes regarding allocation than any sort-of conscious planning process.
--
now I happen to think most of that is hogwash and mystification and actually think the issue being raised here (where and how do we draw the line as to what consitututes legitimate ownership and illegitimate ownership) is a particular flaw in the pragmatics of AC. ACers here are wont to argue at times that the concentration of power/wealth under corporate capitalism is illegitimate/immoral but are loathe to talk about any sort of seizure and redistribution.
|