Well, you've got a point there. lordbt hasn't really presented a satisfying criterion for determining whether what one earns is proportionate to how hard he works. To him, the relativism inherent to the market in terms of supply and demand (and managerial decisions) which determine wages is good enough. I agree with him that individual freedom in the form of property is something to be valued. He values it above everything else, even if this means the social disintegration of society (in the form of huge concentrations of wealth), however.
I don't think he's being mean or insincere. I think he really does value property freedom as he defines it, and really believes it's the most important thing ever.
Well, rather than respond to everything individually, I will respond to this and hopefully answer all other posts. First of all, your last sentence here is incorrect. I dont believe property rights are 'the most important thing ever.' I do, however, believe that individual rights in general
are the most important thing. Property rights are simply one of those individual rights that I defend most often because it is property rights that under the greatest degree of attack. But the truth is, I defend
all other rights that flow from mans primary right to life equally. For instance, if your right to freedom of speech were under assault by envious masses, I would defend you using the same principles and virtually the same arguments I use when defending the right of an individual to his possessions.
I think you have made clear your disdain for the concept of inherent individual rights on a previous thread, but it is certainly evident with regard to the concept of property rights. To sum up in brief, I accept completely the concept of inherent rights of the individual, and reject any notion that rights belong to society, the majority, the king, the state, the Fuhrer, or even God, Himself. They belong to the individual by virtue of his nature as man.
I think you can look at rights in one of two ways. One way or another, rights exist. They will either belong to those who seize them by force--might makes right--or it will belong to all men equally by virtue of their very being--right makes right. You have accepted the former, and I have accepted the latter. That is why you and I disagree on everything. We hold opposite principles and, thus, reach opposite conclusions. You believe that society determines what rights we possess. I claim that human nature determines what right we possess. But then we are talking about two different things: me, rights and you, privileges.
Look at it this way. When I was ten, I was allowed to stay up til 9:00. Occasionally, I was allowed to stay up later to catch a movie. Those are examples of privileges, not rights. Today, I stay up as late as I wish. That I do by right. How late my ten year old gets to stay up is entirely up to me. I determine that time by right. She gets to stay up as a privilege bestowed upon her by me. She has no 'right' to stay up beyond the time I set for her. But I have the right to set that time. I act by right, and what she does is done by privilege. Apply that to a social setting and you can see that if society (whatever that is) determines what my 'rights' are, then I have no rights. I have privileges.
You value the 'right' to property only insofar as it accomplishes your social goals and aspirations. You see the individual as simply a cog in the societal wheel that you use as you see fit. If one person has more possessions than you think he should, you believe you have some 'right' to seize them. You never, however, lay out exactly from where you derive this power to initiate force against another human being who is doing you no harm. That is why the comparison to the pick-pocket, the thug, or the common thief is so appropriate. You use the same method to achieve your ends--force. You simply hide behind altruism and use it as blank check on your actions. That would make the thief a bit more honest. At least he doesnt pretend what he is doing is moral. He knows what he is taking doesnt belong to him. And you know it too. But that doesnt stop him, and it doesnt stop you either.
Just as you have no right to deprive me of my life; just as you have no right to deprive me of my liberty; you have no right to deprive me of my possessions. If you believe that you do have such a 'right' from where is that supposed 'right' of yours derived? If you want me to buy into the whole idea that it is somehow just to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have to explain how such an obvious violation of individual rights can ever be considered just without destroying completely the concept of justice. You have already corrupted the concept of rights, do you plan to do the same for the concept of justice?