I got to thinking about the foundational nature of property rights after reading the following by Megan McArdle:
"I have no doubt that I place a much, much higher value on property rights than does John Holbo. But I am not one of those libertarians who takes the sanctity and inviolability of property rights as their most important first principal. Property rights exist only in the context of society, and not only are they far more contingent and flexible than I think many libertarians acknowledge, I believe they have to be. Property rights are an evolved institution that happens to work better than the alternatives for enhancing human welfare."
Since this comment is in the context of the health care debate raised on our blog it seems to be both relevant to that discussion as well as the broader nature of liberty.
So, using the following, from FA Harper as a working definition:
"Liberty stems from liber, which means to be free. And so the definition of liberty I would propose is this:
Liberty is the absence of coercion of a human being by any other human being; it is a condition where the person may do whatever he desires, according to his wisdom and conscience."
There you have it - liberty and freedom imply a personal responsibility, an acceptance of consequences and the ability to use moral reasoning.
Property rights are the evolving institution that is the important constraint on liberty - that is property rights establish the boundaries of my liberty.
So, I end up disagreeing with Megan, I do see property rights as the first principle of liberalism and liberty.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment