|
|
| On Property |
|
(Click here to continue
on the main path)
|
Ann Speaking
|
The
Lockean proviso raises one problem for
libertarian property rights. But I think that
there are other problems. As a utilitarian, I
judge acts and policies by their consequences.
The problem with most libertarians is that
consequences are a secondary concern -- or not a
concern at all.
If we carry libertarian property rights to their
logical conclusions, there are both logical
consequences as well as economic consequences
that need to be considered. For example, there
is the problem of what are sometimes called
"coercive wage bargains."
The logical consequence of libertarian
principles is that virtually any wage agreement
is justified if the parties are not physically
coerced or threatened with physical coercion.
The economic consequence is that millions of
people end up working under poor conditions for
extremely low wages and any government
interference to help them is said to be morally
unacceptable. To do anything would be to
interfere with a so-called "voluntary" or "free"
agreement between individuals.
In my opinion, these consequences -- both
logical and economic -- are exactly the reason
we should reject libertarian principles in the
economic area.
The philosopher Thomas Scanlon makes the
following point when criticizing Nozick's
views
It is central to
Nozick's argument that the rights with which
he is concerned are claimed to be natural
rights in the stronger sense [i.e. rights
that individuals can claim in the state of
nature]. The objections I have raised to his
examples almost all demand that he consider
the consequences of enforcement of absolute
property and contract rights and that he
explain why the loss of liberty this
involves for some people is not worse than
that which is involved in the alternative
systems which he deplores. [Reading
Nozick, p. 123, brackets added.]
The point is that consequences matter.
They shouldn't be ignored. |
|