Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: “FREE TO CHOOSE”
Funding for this program provided by Additional funding provided by When we finished last-place season, we were looking at John Stuart Mill’s and his attempt to reply to the reviewers of Bentham’s utilitarianism in his volume Utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that analysts to the contrary, it is feasible within utilitarian framework to distinguishbetween higher and lower gratifications, it is possible to originate qualitative importances of importance, and we measured of that sentiment with the Simpsons in the Shakespeare excerpts and the outcome of that our venture seemed to call into question Mill’s marks because a great many of you reported that you prefer the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be the higher for the worthier pleasure that’s the quagmire with which our experiment challenges Mill. what about Mill’s attempt to account for extremely weighty reputation of individual rights and justice in chapterfive of utilitarianism? he wants to say that individual claims are worthy of special respect in fact he goes so far as to say that justiceis the most sacred part and the most incomparably tying part of morality but the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill’s defense why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our honour? wellhe says because in the long run if we do justice and if we respect liberties, civilization as a whole will be better off in the long run.Well what about that? what if we have a case where making an exceptionand violating individual claims actually will construct people better off in the long run is it all rightthen? to use beings? and there’s a further objection that could be raised against Mill’s case for justice and privileges repute the utilitarian calculus in the long runworks out as he says it will such that respecting people’s rights is a way of uttering everybody better offin the long run is that the right rationale is that the only reason to respect parties? if the doctor goes in and yanks the parts from the healthy patientwho came in for a checkup to save five lives there would be adverse effects in the longrun eventually beings would learn about this and would stop going in for examinations is it the claim reason is the only reason that you as a doctor won’t snatched the parts out of a healthypatient that you think well if I use him in this way in the long run more lifetimes will be lost? or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for theperson as private individuals and if that reason matters and it’s not so clear that even Mill’s utilitarianism can take account of it perfectly to examine these two perturbs or objections to Mill’s justification we need to we need to push further we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleases are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral the criteria for the importance of solaces? if so what do they look like? that’s one question in the case of justice and liberties if we suspected that Mill is implicitly leaningon notions of human dignity or respect for persons that are not, properly speaking, utilitarian we need to look to see whether there are somestronger theories of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares the intuition that the reason for respecting individualsand not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.Today we be returned to one of those strong theories of rights strong theories of rights say individuals difficulty not just as instruments to be used for alarger social determination or for the sake of maximizing utility types are separate beings with separate lifetimes worthy of respect and so it’s a mistake according to strong presumptions rights, it’s a mistake to think about justice or regulation by only coming up preferences and significances the strong privileges belief we turn to today is libertarianism libertarianism take individual claims earnestly it’s called libertarianism because it says thefundamental individual right is the right to liberation precise because we are separate individualbeings we’re not available to any employ that national societies might desire or organize. precisely becausewe’re individual separate human being we have a fundamental right to liberty and that conveys a freedom to choose freely to live our lives as we please provided we respect other people’s rights to do the same that’s the fundamental idea Robert Nozick one of the libertarian philosophers we predict for this course articulates it this channel souls have rights so strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the issue of what, if anything the regime may do.So what does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state well there are three things that most modern moods do that on the libertarian speculation of rights are illegitimate are unjust one of them is paternalist legislation that’s elapse laws that protect people fromthemselves fucking seat belt laws for example or motorcycle helmet constitutions the libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seat belts, but that should be up to them and the state the government has no business coercing them, us to wear seat belts by statute its compulsion so no paternalist legislation number one. number two no morals legislation many laws try to promote the quality of citizens or try to give expression to the moral importances of the society as a whole. libertarians say that’s also a violation of the right to liberty take the example of, well a classic exampleof legislation offered in the name of promoting honour traditionally, ought to have constitutions that thwart sexual friendship between gays and lesbians the libertarian says nobody else is harmed nobody else’s rights are flouted so the country should get all of the business entirely of trying to promote virtue or to play mores legislation.And the third kind of law or programme it is ruled out on the libertarian ideology is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose of redistributing income or opulence from the rich to the poor redistribution is a kind of, if you think about it says libertarianists, a kind of coercion what it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority if we’re talking about a democracy from people who happen to do very well andearn a lot of money now Nozick and other libertarians allow thatthere can be a negligible be said that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs the national defense police force judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights but that’s it. Now I want to get your reactions to this third boast of the libertarian deem I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why and time to make a concrete and to see what’s atstake consider the distribution of rich in the united states.The united states is among the most In-egalitarian societies as far asdistribution of asset, of all the advanced republics now is this just or unjust pit what is the libertarian say the libertarian says you can’t know exactly from the facts of the case I merely granted you you can’t know whether that distribution it’s just or unjust. you can’t know really by looking at a patternor a spread or a solution whether it’s just or unjust you have to know how it came to be you can’t only look at the end nation or theresult you have to look at two principles the first he announces justice in buy or in initial impounds and what that necessitates simply is did parties get the things they use to make their money reasonably so we need to know was there justice in the initial impounds, did they steal the tract or the factory or the goods that enable people to make all thatmoney? if not, if they were entitled to whatever it was thatenabled them to gather the property the first principle is met. the second principle is did the dispensation arise from the operation of free consent people buying and trading on world markets as “youre seeing” the libertarian idea of right is the equivalent of a free market conception of justice rendered people got what they used reasonably didn’t steal it and supplied the deployment results from the free choiceof individuals’ buying and selling things the deployment is just and it’s not it’s unjust.So let’s, in order to fix plans for this discussion, take an actual pattern who’s wealthiest party in the united states, wealthiest party inthe world Bill Gates, it is, you’re right. now he is. you’d be happy too now, what’s his net worth? anybody have any idea? that’s a big number during the Clinton years recollect there wasa controversy, donors, big campaign donors were invited to stay overnight in the Lincolnbedroom at the white house I think if you lent twenty five thousanddollars or above someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited to stay a nightin the Lincoln bedroom Bill Gates could open to stay in the Lincolnbedroom every night for the next sixty six thousand years somebody else figured out how much does he get paid on an hourly basis and so they figured out since he began Microsoft suppose the worked about fourteen hours per day a reasonable guess and you calculate this is net resource it is about to change that his pace of remunerate is over a hundred and fifty dollars not per hour , not per time a hundred and fifty dollars, more than a hundredand fifty dollars per second which implies which meant that if on his style to the office Gates noticed a hundred-dollar bill on thestreet it wouldn’t be worth his time to stop and pick it up now most of you would say someone that rich surely we can tax them to meet the pressing needs of people who lack of education or need enough to eat or shortage nice dwelling they need it more than he does and if you were a utilitarian what the hell is you do? What taxation policy would you have you’d redistribute in a flash wouldn’t you because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some, a small amount, he’s seldom going to notice it, but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfareof those at the bottom but remember the libertarian belief says we can’t time add up and aggregate preferences and comforts that mode we have to respect those individuals and if he gave that fund fairly without infringing anybody else’s rights in accordance with the two principles of justicein acquisition and right in change, then it would be wrong it would be a form of coercion to take it away Michael Jordan is not as affluent Bill Gates but he did pretty well for himself you want to see Michael Jordan? there he is his income alone in one year was thirty one billion dollars and then he made another forty seven milliondollars in endorsements for Nike and other corporations so his income was in one year seventy eight million the necessitate him to pay say a third of his earnings to the government to support good lawsuits like food and health care and housing and educationfor the poor that’s coercion that’s unjust that contravenes his rights and that’s why redistribution is wrong. Now, how many agree with that argument agree with the libertarian reason that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong? and how many disagree with that controversy? all right let’s begin with those who disagree? what’s wrong with the libertarian bag against redistribution? I conceive these people like Michael Jordan havereceived, we’re talking about working within the society they received a larger gift from national societies and they have a largerobligation in return to give that through dissemination you know you can say that Michael Jordan maywork just as hard as someone who works you know doing laundry twelve hours, fourteen hoursa epoch but he’s receiving more I don’t think it’s fair to say that youknow it’s all on his inherent hard work.All right let’s hear from defenders of libertarianism why would it be wrong in principle to tariff the rich to help the poor. My name is Joe and I obtain skateboards. I’ve since bought a hundred skate councils andlive in a society the hundred people I’m the only one with skateboards suddenlyeveryone decides they require skateboard they come into the house to take my, they take ninetynine of my skateboards. I think that is unjust now I think in certain circumstances, it becomes necessary to overlook injustice and perhapscondone that injustice as in the case of the room son get killed for meat if beings are on the verge of dying perhaps it is necessary to overlook that transgression but I think it’simportant to keep in mind they were still committing injustice by making people’s belonging or assets. Are you sayingthat tax Michael Jordan say at thirty three percent tax rate for good causes to feed the hungry is theft I think it’s unjust, yes I do believe it’s crime, but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.But it’s theft. Yes. why is it theft, Joe? because why is it like your collection of skateboards? it’s theft because or at least in my opinion and by the libertarian opinion he gave that coin somewhat and it belongs to him and so take it from him is by definition theft. alright let’s see if there is who wants to reply to Joe? yes go ahead I don’t think this necessarily a dispute in which you haveninety nine skateboards and the authorities concerned, or you have a hundreds skateboardsand the government is taking ninety nine of them it’s like the it’s like you have more skateboards than there are daytimes in the year, you have more skateboards thanyou’re going to be able to use your part life-time and the government is taking part of those.And I think that if you’re be present in civilization in which the authorities concerned in which the government doesn’t redistributewealth that that allows for parties to amass so much wealth that people who haven’t started from the equal footing in our hypotheticalsituation, that doesn’t exist in our real society, do weakened for the rest of their lives. so you’re worried that if there isn’t somedegree of redistribution if some are left at the bottom there will be no genuine equality of opportunity alright. the relevant recommendations that taxation is theft, Nozick makes that moment one stair further he agrees that it’s theft he’s more demanding than Joe, Joe says it istheft, maybe in an extreme case it’s justified maybe a parent is justified in stealing a loaf of bread to feed his or her hungry lineage so Joe is a what? What would you call yourselfa compassionate quasi libertarian? Nozick says, if you think about it taxation amounts to the taking of earnings in other words it necessitates taking the fruits of my labor but if the state has the right to take my earnings or the outcome of the my strive, isn’t that morally the same as according to the state the right to claim a portion of my proletariat? So taxation actually is morally equivalent to forced labor because forced labor involves the taking of my recreation, my occasion, my attempts just as taxation takes the earnings that I establish with my labor.And so for Nozick and for the libertarians taxation for redistribution is theft as Joe says, but not only thing left it is morally equivalent to laying claim to specific hours of a person’s life and labor so it’s morally equivalent to forced labor if the state has a right to claim the fruitsof my strive that implies that it truly has an entitlement to my labor itself and what is forced labor? forced labor Nozick points out it’s what? it’s bondage because if I don’t have the right, the sole freedom to my own labor then that’s really to say that the governmentor the political society is a part owner in me and what does it mean for the district to bea part owner in me? if you think about it it meant that I am a slave that I don’t own myself so what this line of reasoning imparts us to is the fundamental principle that underlies the libertarian event for rights what is that principle? it’s the idea that I own myself it’s the relevant recommendations of self-possession if you want to make claims gravely if you don’t want to only regard parties as collects of wishes the fundamental moral notion to which you will be head is the idea that we are the owners or the proprietorsof our own being and that’s why utilitarian goes wrong and that’s why it’s wrong to pull the organsfrom that health case you’re acting as if that case belongs to you or to the community but we belong to ourselves and that’s the same reason that it’s wrong to make laws to protect us fromourselves or to tell us how to live to tell us what virtues we should be governed by and that’s also why it’s wrong to duty the rich to help the poor even for good causeseven to help those who are displaced by the hurricane Katrina ask them to give charity but if you levy them it’s like forcing them to labor could “youre telling” Michael Jordan he has to skip next week’s tournaments and go down to help the people displaced by hurricane Katrina? morally it’s the same so the stakes are very high so far we’ve heard some dissents to the libertarian argument but if you want to reject it you have to break into this chain of reasoningwhich travels taking my earnings is like taking my labor but making my proletariat is attaining me a slave and if you disagree with that you must believe in the principle of self-possession those who dissent gather your objections and we’ll starting with them next time.Anyone like to take up that phase? yes I feel like when you live in a society you give up that freedom, I make technically, if I want topersonally and kill someone because they offend me, that is self-possession. Because I live in a society I cannot do that 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. we were talking last-place age about libertarianism I want to go back to the arguments for andagainst the redistribution of income but before we do that time one word about the mood Milton Friedman the libertarian economist he points out that many of the affairs that we take for granted as properly belonging to government, dont they are paternalist. one example he establishes is socialsecurity he says it’s a good idea for beings to save for their retirement during their earning times 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 purposes of the their retirement. If peoplewant to make the occasion or if people want to live big today and live a poor retirement that should be their choice they should befree to conclude those judgments and take those risks so even social security would still be at odds with the minimal be said that Milton Friedman bickered for it’s sometimes are of the view that collective goods like police care andfire protection surely generate the problem of free ridersunless their publicly provided however ways to avoid free riders, there are ways to restrict even apparently collective goods likefire protection I read an article a while back about a private fire companythe Salem Fire corporation in Arkansas you can sign up with this Salem Fire Corporation pay a yearly subscription fee, and if your room catches on fire they will come and put out the ardour but they won’t put out everybody’s burn, they will exclusively framed it out if it’s a burn in the home of reader or if it starts to spread and to threaten the dwelling of a subscriber the newspaper article told the story of ahomeowner who had subscribed to this company in the past but failed to renew his due his housecaught on fire the Salem Fire Corporation testified up withits trucks and watched the house burn.Just making sure that it didn’t spread the attack principal was asked well he wasn’t accurately the flaming prime I guess he was the CEO he was asked how can you stand by with volley material and allow a person’s home to burn? he replied formerly we confirmed there was nodanger to a member’s property we had no choice but to back off according to our rules. If we responded toall shoots, he said, there used to be no incentive to agree the homeowner in this case tried to renewhis subscription at the scene of the fire but the head of the company refused you can’t shipwreck your auto, he said, and thenbuy insurance for it later so even public goods that we take for grantedas being within the proper province of government can, many of them, in principle be isolated, manufactured exclusive to those who pay.That’s all to do with the question of collective goods and the libertarian’s injunction against paternalism let’s go back now to the reasons about redistribution now, underlying the libertarian’s lawsuit for the negligible districts is a worry about coercion, but what’s wrongwith pressure? libertarian gives this answer to coerce 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 rights moral happening of self-possession or self possession the libertarian’s argument against redistribution begins with this fundamental idea that weown ourselves Nozick was of the view that if this is society as a whole can go to Bill Gates or go to Michael Jordan and imposition apart a portion of their wealth, what the society is really saying is a collective owned right in Bill Gates or in Michael Jordan but that infringes the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves now we’ve already heard a number of objections to the libertarian argument what I would like to do today it’s to give the libertarians among us a chance to answer the dissents that have been raised and some have been some have already linked themselves have agreedto come and make the subject for libertarianism to reply to the objectionsthat have been raised so raise your hand if you are among the libertarianswho’s prepared to stand up for the philosophy and response to the oppositions you are? Alex Harris.Alex Harris who he’s been a star on the web blog, alright Alex “ve been coming” stand-up we’ll create a libertarian area overhere and who else other libertarians who will join what’s you’re name? John. John Sheffield, John, and who else wants to join other brave libertarians who are prepared to take on yes what’s your name Julia Roto, Julia come join us over there now while the, squad libertarian Julia, John, Alex while unit libertarian is gatheringover there let me simply summarize the central objections that I’ve heard in class and on the web site objection number one and now I’ll come down too, I want to talkto team libertarian over here so opposition number one is that the poorest of the poor need the money more that’s an obvious opposition a lot more than than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan objection number two it’s not really slavery to tariff because at least in a democratic civilization there’s not a slave incumbent it’s congress it’s a democratic, you’re smiling Alex, you’realready a confident you can reply to all of these so taxation by acquiesce of the governed is notcoerced third some people have said don’t be successful like Gates owe a pay to society for their success thatthey refund by give taxes who wants to respond to the first one thepoor need the money more all right you’re John John all right John what’s the answer, here I’ll prop it.Alright the poorest of the poor need the money more, that’s quite obvious I could use money you know I certainly wouldn’tmind if Bill Gates “ve been given” a million dollars I make I’d take a thousand but at some phase you have to understand that the benefits ofredistribution of opulence don’t justify the initial violation of the asset right if you look at the proof the poor needthe money more at no item in that argument you contradictthe fact that we extrapolated from agreed upon principles that parties own themselves we’ve extrapolated that people have propertyrights and so whether or not it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even a necessary thing for the survivalof some people we don’t see that that apologizes the violationof the right that we logically extrapolated and so that also I mean they’re still exist this institution of of individual generosity, Milton Freidman impels this argument alright so Bill gates can give to charity if he wants to but it would still be wrong to obligate him precisely meet the demands of the poor.Are the two of you happy with that reply? anything to add? alright Go ahead, Julie? Julia, ya, I envision I has the potential to ass I suspect I could add that there’s a difference between needing something and deservingsomething. I signify in an ideal society everyone’s needs would be met but now we’re arguing what do we deserve as a society and the poor don’t deserve the benefits that would flow from tariffing MichaelJordan to help them. Based on what we’ve come up with here, I don’t think you deserve something like that. Alright let me, push you a little on that Julia the victims of hurricane Katrina are in desperate need of assistant would you say that they don’t deserve the help that would come from the federal government departments through taxation. okay that’s a, difficult question I think this is a case where they need help not “ve earned it”, but I judge again if you reach a certain level of of requirements to reach sustenance, you’re going to needhelp, like if you don’t have food or place to live that’s a case of need.So need is onething and dessert is another. exactly who would like to reply? Come back to that first point that he made about the property rights of theindividual the property rights are established and enforced bythe government which is a democratic government and we have representatives who enforce those rights, if you live in a society that operates underthose rules then it should be up to the government to decide how those resources that come about through taxation are distributedbecause it’s through the consent of the governed and if you disagree with it you don’t have to live in that society where that are present. Alright, good so, and tell me your refer. Raul Raul is pointing out actually Raul is invoking point number two if the taxation is by the consent of the determined it’s not pressured it’s legitimate Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are citizens of the UnitedStates, they get to vote for congress and they get to vote their policy beliefs just like everybody else who would like to take that one on? John? Basically what the libertarians are objecting to in this case is the middleeighty percent adjudicate what the top ten percent are doing for the bottom ten percent withwait wait wait, John, majority, don’t you believe in republic? well right but at some degree, don’t you believe in the, I make, you sayeighty percent ten percent, majority, majority rule is what? majority! accurately but, in a democracy aren’t youfor republic? Yes I’m for republic but, hang in, democracy and mob rule are not the same thing.Mob rule? mob rule.But in an open society, you have recourse to address that through your representatives and if the majority of the consent of those who are govern doesn’t agree withyou then you are familiar with, you’re choosing to live in the society and you have to operate under what the majority of the society concludes Alright, Alex, on republic, what about that? The knowledge I have, you are familiar with, one five hundred thousandthof a vote for one representative in congress was not the same as my having the ability to decide for myself how to use my property rights. I’m a drop in the pail and you know while.. You might lose the vote exactly and they are likely take? and I will, I imply I don’t have the decision right now of whether not to pay taxesif I don’t get locked in jail or they tell me to get out of the country.Now Alex, let me make a small case for democracy and learn what you would say. why can’t you “were living in” a democratic society with freedomof addres why can’t you take to the hustings, coax your fellow citizens that taxation is unjust and try to get a majority? I don’t think that parties is advisable to, should haveto convince two hundred and eighty million others simply in order to exercise their own rights, in order to be allowed to not have their selfownership violated.I think parties should be able to do that without having to convince two hundred eighty million people. Does thatmean you’re against republic as a whole? No I only believe in a very limited fromdemocracy whereby we have a constitution that severely restriction the scope of what decisions can be made democratically Alright so you’re saying that democracyis fine except where fundamental rights are involved, and I think you could prevail if you’re going on thehustings let me add one element to the argument youmight establish perhaps you were able to say, set aside the economicdebates taxation suppose the individual right to religious libertywere at stake then Alex you could say on the hustings, surely you would all agree that we shouldn’t positioned the right to individualliberty up to a election yeah that’s exactly right and that’s why we have constitutional amendmentsand why we make it so hard to amend our constitution. so you would say that the human rights of private property the interests of Michael Jordan to keep all themoney he makes at least to protect it from redistribution is that same kind of right with the same kind of weight as the right to freedom of speech the right to religious sovereignty, titles thatshould trump what the majority demands perfectly the reason why we have a rightto free speech is because we have a right to own ourselves, to activity our articulate in any way that we choose.Alright, good. alright who would like to respondto that reason about democracy being, alright there stand up I repute comparing religion and economics, it’s notthe same thing the reason why Bill Gates was able to makeso much fund is because we live in an economically and socially stable society and if the government didn’t provide for thepoorest ten percent as you say, through taxation then we would need more coin for police to prevent crime and so either way there would be more taxestaken away to provide what you guys calling and then required things that the government renders. What’s your name? Anna. Anna let me ask you this why is the fundamental right to religious immunity different the claim Alex holds 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 you wouldn’t be able to make money, you wouldn’t be able to own property there wasn’t socially like if society wasn’t stable.And that’s very different from religion that’slike something personal, something you can practice on your own in your own your own home whereas like me practising my doctrine isn’t going to affect another party, whereas if I’m poor and I’m desperate, I might commit a crime to feed my family and that can affect others. Okay thankyou would it be wrong for someone to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starting family is that wrong? I believe that it is.Let’s take let’s take a quickpoll of the three of you, you say yes it is wrong. it transgresses property rights it’s wrong. even to save the starve home? I imply therethere certainly other actions around that and by justifying now hang on hang on before you jest at me before apologizing the act of stealing you have to look at violating the privilege that we’ve already agreedexists, the right of self-possession and the arrests of I symbolize, your own things we agree on propertyright. Alright, we agree it’s stealing so property rights are not the issue, alright so whyis it wrong to steal even to feed your starving home? kind of the original dispute thatI cleared in the very in the very first question you asked, the potential benefits of an activity don’t justify, dont clear specific actions merely well what would you say Julia? Is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a hunger category or to steala drug that your child needs to to survive I make I’m okay with that candidly, even from the libertarian perspective, I think that okay saying that you can just take money arbitrarily from people who have a lotto go to this pool of people who need it but you have an individual who’s acting ontheir own behalf to kind of save themselves I think you said from the idea of self-possession they are also in charge of protecting themselves and keeping themselves alive so therefore even from a libertarian standpoint that mightbe okay Alright that’s good, that’s good.Alright what about quantity three up here isn’t it the example that the successful, the rich owe a pay, they did do that all by themselvesthey had to cooperate with other parties that they owe a indebtednes to society and that that’s expressed intaxation. DO you want to make that on Julie? okay this one, I believe that there is not a debt to civilization in a sense that how did people becomewealthy? they “ve done something” that culture quality most I think that society has already been providing for them if anything I think it’s everything is cancelled out, they a service to culture and communities responded by somehow they gottheir affluence well be concrete, in the case of MichaelJordan, some, I mean to illustrate your point there were people who helped him make money, teammates the coach parties learnt him how to play, but those you’re saying, but they’ve allbeen paid for their services exactly and communities deduced a lot of benefit and pleasurefrom watching Michael Jordan romp and I think that that’s how he paid his debtto civilization good, who are capable of, anyone like to take up that part? I think that there’s a problem now that we’re assuming that a person has self-possessionwhen they live in a society I feel like when you live in a society you give up that right.I mean if I wanted personally to kill someone because they offend me thatis self-possession. Because I live in a society, I cannot do that I think it’s kind of an equivalent to say, because I have more coin I have resources thatthat could save people’s lives is it not okay for the government to take thatfrom me? it’s self-possession merely to a certain extentbecause I’m living in a society where I have to take account of parties around me.So areyou questioning, what’s your call? Victoria. Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self-possession? Yes. I think that you don’t really have self-possessionif you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount the peoplearound you. Alright I want to quickly get a response of the libertarian team to the last point. the last point builds on, well maybe it builds on Victoria’s suggestionthat we don’t own ourselves because it says that Bill Gates is affluent that Michael Jordan makes a huge income isn’t wholly their own doing it’s the product of a lot of fluke and so we can’t claim that they morally deserve all the money they start. who wants to reply to that, Alex? You certainly could reach the suit that it is not, that their money is not appropriate to the goodness of their natures but that’s not really the more the morally relevant issue.the point is that they have received what they have through thefree exchange of people who have given them their braces frequently in exchange for providingsome other service. good enough I want to try to sum up what we’ve learnedfrom this discussion but first let’s thank John Alex and Julia for a really wonderful job, toward the end of the discussion just now Victoria challenged the proposition of this line of reasoning thislibertarian logic maybe, she advocated, we don’t own ourselves after all if you reject the libertarian bag against redistribution there would seem to be an incentive to break into the libertarian line of reasoning at a very early, 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 proposition, the big idea underlying the libertarian debate, is it true that we own ourselves or can we do without that hypothesi and still of avoid what libertarians want to avoid creating a society and an chronicle of Justice where some people can be time 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 beings as mean for the collective merriment by saying the way to put a stop to that utilitarianlogic of using people is to resort to the instinctively powerfulidea that we are the proprietors of our own being That’s Alex and Julia and John, and Robert Nozick what are the consequences for a presumption of justice and an history of rights of calling into question the idea of self-possession does it mean that we’re back to utilitarianism and using parties and aggregating predilections and pushing the fatty humanity off the connect? Nozick doesn’t himself, fully develop the idea of self-possessionhe acquires it from an earlier philosopher John Locke John Locke accounted for the rise of private property from the state of nature by a order of conclude very similar to theone that Nozick and the libertarians use John Locke said private property starts because when we mix our labor with things unowned things we come to acquire a quality right in thosethings the above reasons? the reason is that we own our own labor and the reason for that we’re the proprietors the owners of our own person and so in order to examine the moral force of the libertarian claimthat that we own ourselves we need to turn to the English political philosopher John Locke and examine his account of private property and self owned and that’s what we’ll do next time don’t miss the chance to interact online with other observers of Justice join the conversation, take a pop quiz, watch teaches you’ve missed, and learn a lot more.Visit justiceharvard.org, it’s the right thing to do. funding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by.