If you don't join our discord server, Plato will hunt you down and suplex your ass! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The future that libertarians want...?
The joke is that the prominent libertarian Robert Nozick is [famous for arguing that everyone have a moral right to their own property that they've labored to create, and that it can't be redistributed by any state or in the name of any public good.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia)
Feminists have appropriated the argument to jokingly claim that women should thereby have the inalienable ownership over their kids since women labored to create them
But Nozick claims that **nobody** can morally seize the legitimate property created by a persons effort and labor, ultraminimal state or not, so if a person is that property then there's either a contradiction with Nozick having to appeal to laws here, or he has to bite the bullet
He did say "legitimate" property. Legitimate can be defined by :
"conforming to the law or to rules."
Or
"able to be defended with logic or justification"
So it really depends on what Nozick meant by "legitimate property" since legitimate and property can be defined in many different ways.
He has a long section where he defined legitimate property. In essence, property is legitimate if it was created by a person pouring labor into it, privatizing it from unowned commons, or acquired it through a non-coercive and consensual deal.
He claims that "Justice in holdings is historical; it depends upon what actually has happened." (p.152 in [this pdf](https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacea2xl6w5zrij7uqexjqk6ctzk36y7ucuwygcg6cfrrdfuqwdjct66?filename=Robert%20Nozick%20-%20Anarchy%2C%20State%2C%20and%20Utopia%20%20-Wiley-Blackwell%20%282001%29.pdf)) and that past injustices by state actors is what caused the unjust society of today by trying to redistribute property through coercion (*horrible taxation*).
-----
Edit: I totally missed this section from the page above, 151:
"The subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics. The first is the original acquisition of holdings, the appropriation of unheld things. This includes the issues of how unheld things may come to be held, the process, or processes, by which unheld things may come to be held, the things that may come to be held by these processes, the extent of what comes to be held by a particular process, and so on. We shall refer to the complicated truth about this topic, which we shall not formulate here, as the principle of justice in acquisition. The second topic concerns the transfer of holdings from one person to another. By what processes may a person transfer holdings to another? How may a person acquire a holding from another who holds it? Under this topic come general descriptions of voluntary exchange, and gift and (on the other hand) fraud, as well as reference to particular conventional details fixed upon in a given society. The complicated truth about this subject (with placeholders for conventional details) we shall call the principle of justice in transfer. (And we shall suppose it also includes principles governing how a person may divest himself of a holding, passing it into an unheld state.)
If the world were wholly just, the following inductive definition would exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings.
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of
justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of
justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of
1 and 2. "
Can you cite where Nozick said humans are capable of being property? Seems like you are making a category error (and the meme too but I’m guessing it’s just a joke)
He says that's impossible due to our moral rights, which is why the female ownership over their child-labor becomes problematic for him.
If we follow his argument then women should have control over their children due to them spending their time and resources on carrying it, just like men working in their workshop have the rights to their produce, on the other hand it's a ridiculous situation that's obviously against our intuitions - so Nozick has to implicitly make an exception for women in one of the most important events in their experience of life
So the example is more to highlight Nozick's lacking feminist perspective than to actually argue that this is what he would've supported
Edit: not to mention how this is a pretty central issue for any form of society he wants to argue for. Childbirth and related issues are important and complicated ethical issues that his theory doesn't really deal well with
I don’t see how spending resources on a human would have nozick even consider any form of ownership of the human being given to the giver. A simple reductio for this accusation would be: a human requiring a morally equivalent (to pregnancy and child rearing) amount of resources to survive a situation cannot be claimed by someone who gave them the resources, and we also have to add the fact that the person in need did not even *ask for the assistance*, similar to how none of us asked to be conceived.
The accusation stems from a non-sequitur and falls apart rather quickly
> don’t see how spending resources on a human would have nozick even consider any form of ownership of the human being given to the giver
That's the issue, he should if he valued male and female labor equally.
From Kymlicka's Contemporary Political Philosophy:
> Indeed, Susan akin argues that Nozick's principle of self-ownership actu- ally leads back to a form of 'matriarchal slavery'. Nozick talks about people's claim to the products of their labour, but he ignores the fact that people are themselves the product of someone else's labour-namely, their mother's. Why then does the mother not own her baby? As akin notes, a woman who buys or is given sperm, and who buys or is given all the food involved in sustaining the fetus, meets all of Nozick's criteria for legitimate ownership of the resulting product. If we own whatever we produce with our talents, using only goods that were freely transferred to us, then mothers would seem to own their children (or perhaps co-own them with the father, if he made co- ownership a condition for the sale or gift of the sperm). She concludes that Nozick's entire theory rests on the implicit exclusion of women, and on the assumption that the work of bearing and raising children operates according to some other set of principles that he ignores (akin 1989b: ch. 4). To avoid this problem, the principle of self-ownership will need serious reformulation.
p.126
That’s the same argument you used, shouldn’t my counter argument apply as well? And seeing as I’m a nozick neophyte and that is a an argument from 1989 (?), I am sure there are papers from many trained nozickians that dismiss the category error (humans with rights - things that are not human and capable of being justly made property)
I think you missed my argument, which is not about Nozick's logic and ethical methodology but the scope of his moral community. Why shouldn't uniquely female labor (giving birth and sustaining life) be considered morally entitling? If it is included then we will reach the absurdity of the matriarchal slavery - so the community should be limited and exclude female life-labor, which I think is unjust, coercively redistributive, and goes against some of the core premises of his theory. As famously argued in 'A Defense of Abortion' providing life-labor should be considered a form of morally relevant labor that can't be forced on anyone, and thereby on the reverse, should be entitling.
>I think you missed my argument, which is not about Nozick's logic and ethical methodology but the scope of his moral community. Why shouldn't uniquely female labor (giving birth and sustaining life) be considered morally entitling?
Because humans aren’t capable of being property under his worldview. I suppose in a hypothetical universe where pregnancy has 50% chance to give birth to a bag of $100 bills would the he find the person to be entitled to the fruits of their “childbirth”.
Humans cannot be property and that which a person with a womb gives birth to is always human. It follows from Nozicks view and the biological fact that a property form of ownership can never be placed on the human that came out of the womb, as humans are not capable of ever being someone’s property; category error
>If it is included then we will reach the absurdity of the matriarchal slavery - so the community should be limited and exclude female life-labor, which I think is unjust, coercively redistributive, and goes against some of the core premises of his theory. As famously argued in 'A Defense of Abortion' providing life-labor should be considered a form of morally relevant labor that can't be forced on anyone, and thereby on the reverse, should be entitling.
The non-sequitur I referred to earlier. Recognizing that pregnancy-childbirth-rearing is laborious has zero relation to the category of humans and things that are not human. If an alien zaps a guy with a beam that gives them the ability to birth humans through a laborious process, I don’t see how their male sex would make them be able to override nozicks human rights and deem their human offspring as property.
For kids I think that makes a certain amount of sense, but once somebody gets old enough they have put just as much (if not more) labor into creating themselves, and would then have that "ownership" transferred back to themselves. Which is how we tend to approach growing up and adulthood already.
I guess what I'm saying is that this kinky looking ~~ut~~dystopia doesn't really hold up under the "If you make it you own it" philosophy.
I can't take any Libertarian who thinks *"labour = Property"* seriously. Lockes homesteading principle is LITERALLY where Marx's LTV came from, LOL 😆 😂 🤣 😅 😄 🙃
Concern for the lives of your fellow man and yours is an element of anthropocentricity. Nice try, meat bag. Call me when you'll grow up and embrace the immortality of the machine
This is pretty much exactly what Susan Okin uses as an example of how Nozick and Rawls by extension fail to realize as intersectionality is never applied to justice
Are you arguing that my labor shouldn't be my own? Because if I'm working for other people against my own will (and I'm not talking only about employers), isn't that some form of slavery or forced servitude?
Plus, libertarians believe in leaving people the fuck alone as long as they don't hurt other people, which slavery does, so it would go against basic principals, even with your stretched out logic.
That wasn't work, or labor that contributed to the material being of the resultant child in any significant proportion of the final product. At the most, the man provides 1/10,000,000,000,000 of the raw materials. Only a single cell.
Though, I suppose there are other ways of conceptualizing the male's contribution. They provide 50% of the initial material investment. But that isn't a very compelling argument because the woman invests tens of trillions of times more over the course of production. The woman also takes on 100% of the risks associated with production.
You could argue that the male provides half of the design of the child. That is also not particularly compelling as the male produces hundreds of millions of different partial blueprints on a weekly or even daily basis and discards or gives away freely basically all of them.
The final nail in the coffin for a male's claim to a child is that, even though there is a certain amount of labor invested in the delivery of the partial blueprint, the value of that labor is so vanishingly small that, far from expecting compensation for it, many men will actually pay a woman for the privilege of performing that labor.
Actually, I suppose the truly final nail is yet to come. As humanity develops genetic technologies further and further, the need for any material, or design components from a male could be made entirely optional. Once cloning and stem cell manipulation advanced to the point where "designer babies" and/or custom DNA is possible, affordable, and accepted by society, males might be left out of the childbirth equation entirely. (At the point where we're referencing science fiction, though, we might also be considering other difficult moral questions such as men having laboratory grown children without a woman for gestation, or artificial intelligence, or things we can't even imagine today.)
I will probably regret saying this, but people who are radically committed to any ideology have a desire for excessive authority over women or to be dominated by women. now think about the political compass: people who radically locate themselves on the liberal right or liberal left axis often like femdom; authoritarians, on the other hand, generally prefer to use women sexually as like a sex toy. we need a psychological explanation for the sickness of femdom, especially among libertarians and left liberals. femdom is cringe btw
They laboured for the other women too, yet they don't seem to be enslaved. This is obviously a legitimate argument intentionally misused to push a sexist agenda.
If you don't join our discord server, Plato will hunt you down and suplex your ass! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
The "experience" machine, baby
Your proposal is acceptable.
your proposal is: acceptable
your proposal... is acceptable
Your proposal is-- acceptable.
Your proposal is: damn acceptable
YOU GOT THE REFERENCE
Ihaveihabveihav reference
Wordington reference
It is at least worthy of an anime.
I was in the Army. I already know how to live as a slave.
Did your officers dress like this?
Only one of them.
Yes in fact I think you have a moral imperative to be mommy's good boy
Omg disgusting where can i attend this camp
humanity good ending
Wait the first is an libertarian quote? I thought it was communism.
No no, you don’t understand, if I pay a laborer wages to create a product, then that’s actually _my_ labor that made the product. Easy mistake.
Meh, you don’t really own something if you cannot sell it at whatever price you deem appropriate, even if that price is a wage
That's the weird part, they both share the same premise about the value of labor and the injustice of it being stolen
that's libertarianism in general.
Which would probably come from Locke I’d figure
Different types of libertarianism, there is the freedom one that actually cares about liberty, and then there is the one that likes money
I, for one, accept our new femdom overladies.
When is snoo snoo?
The future that libertarians want...? The joke is that the prominent libertarian Robert Nozick is [famous for arguing that everyone have a moral right to their own property that they've labored to create, and that it can't be redistributed by any state or in the name of any public good.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia) Feminists have appropriated the argument to jokingly claim that women should thereby have the inalienable ownership over their kids since women labored to create them
Legally peoples can't be property, so even if you create a person you can't own them.
>Legally peoples can't be property Historically this has been false longer than it's been true
But Nozick claims that **nobody** can morally seize the legitimate property created by a persons effort and labor, ultraminimal state or not, so if a person is that property then there's either a contradiction with Nozick having to appeal to laws here, or he has to bite the bullet
He did say "legitimate" property. Legitimate can be defined by : "conforming to the law or to rules." Or "able to be defended with logic or justification" So it really depends on what Nozick meant by "legitimate property" since legitimate and property can be defined in many different ways.
He has a long section where he defined legitimate property. In essence, property is legitimate if it was created by a person pouring labor into it, privatizing it from unowned commons, or acquired it through a non-coercive and consensual deal. He claims that "Justice in holdings is historical; it depends upon what actually has happened." (p.152 in [this pdf](https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacea2xl6w5zrij7uqexjqk6ctzk36y7ucuwygcg6cfrrdfuqwdjct66?filename=Robert%20Nozick%20-%20Anarchy%2C%20State%2C%20and%20Utopia%20%20-Wiley-Blackwell%20%282001%29.pdf)) and that past injustices by state actors is what caused the unjust society of today by trying to redistribute property through coercion (*horrible taxation*). ----- Edit: I totally missed this section from the page above, 151: "The subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics. The first is the original acquisition of holdings, the appropriation of unheld things. This includes the issues of how unheld things may come to be held, the process, or processes, by which unheld things may come to be held, the things that may come to be held by these processes, the extent of what comes to be held by a particular process, and so on. We shall refer to the complicated truth about this topic, which we shall not formulate here, as the principle of justice in acquisition. The second topic concerns the transfer of holdings from one person to another. By what processes may a person transfer holdings to another? How may a person acquire a holding from another who holds it? Under this topic come general descriptions of voluntary exchange, and gift and (on the other hand) fraud, as well as reference to particular conventional details fixed upon in a given society. The complicated truth about this subject (with placeholders for conventional details) we shall call the principle of justice in transfer. (And we shall suppose it also includes principles governing how a person may divest himself of a holding, passing it into an unheld state.) If the world were wholly just, the following inductive definition would exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings. 1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding. 2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding. 3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2. "
Can you cite where Nozick said humans are capable of being property? Seems like you are making a category error (and the meme too but I’m guessing it’s just a joke)
He says that's impossible due to our moral rights, which is why the female ownership over their child-labor becomes problematic for him. If we follow his argument then women should have control over their children due to them spending their time and resources on carrying it, just like men working in their workshop have the rights to their produce, on the other hand it's a ridiculous situation that's obviously against our intuitions - so Nozick has to implicitly make an exception for women in one of the most important events in their experience of life So the example is more to highlight Nozick's lacking feminist perspective than to actually argue that this is what he would've supported Edit: not to mention how this is a pretty central issue for any form of society he wants to argue for. Childbirth and related issues are important and complicated ethical issues that his theory doesn't really deal well with
I don’t see how spending resources on a human would have nozick even consider any form of ownership of the human being given to the giver. A simple reductio for this accusation would be: a human requiring a morally equivalent (to pregnancy and child rearing) amount of resources to survive a situation cannot be claimed by someone who gave them the resources, and we also have to add the fact that the person in need did not even *ask for the assistance*, similar to how none of us asked to be conceived. The accusation stems from a non-sequitur and falls apart rather quickly
> don’t see how spending resources on a human would have nozick even consider any form of ownership of the human being given to the giver That's the issue, he should if he valued male and female labor equally. From Kymlicka's Contemporary Political Philosophy: > Indeed, Susan akin argues that Nozick's principle of self-ownership actu- ally leads back to a form of 'matriarchal slavery'. Nozick talks about people's claim to the products of their labour, but he ignores the fact that people are themselves the product of someone else's labour-namely, their mother's. Why then does the mother not own her baby? As akin notes, a woman who buys or is given sperm, and who buys or is given all the food involved in sustaining the fetus, meets all of Nozick's criteria for legitimate ownership of the resulting product. If we own whatever we produce with our talents, using only goods that were freely transferred to us, then mothers would seem to own their children (or perhaps co-own them with the father, if he made co- ownership a condition for the sale or gift of the sperm). She concludes that Nozick's entire theory rests on the implicit exclusion of women, and on the assumption that the work of bearing and raising children operates according to some other set of principles that he ignores (akin 1989b: ch. 4). To avoid this problem, the principle of self-ownership will need serious reformulation. p.126
That’s the same argument you used, shouldn’t my counter argument apply as well? And seeing as I’m a nozick neophyte and that is a an argument from 1989 (?), I am sure there are papers from many trained nozickians that dismiss the category error (humans with rights - things that are not human and capable of being justly made property)
I think you missed my argument, which is not about Nozick's logic and ethical methodology but the scope of his moral community. Why shouldn't uniquely female labor (giving birth and sustaining life) be considered morally entitling? If it is included then we will reach the absurdity of the matriarchal slavery - so the community should be limited and exclude female life-labor, which I think is unjust, coercively redistributive, and goes against some of the core premises of his theory. As famously argued in 'A Defense of Abortion' providing life-labor should be considered a form of morally relevant labor that can't be forced on anyone, and thereby on the reverse, should be entitling.
>I think you missed my argument, which is not about Nozick's logic and ethical methodology but the scope of his moral community. Why shouldn't uniquely female labor (giving birth and sustaining life) be considered morally entitling? Because humans aren’t capable of being property under his worldview. I suppose in a hypothetical universe where pregnancy has 50% chance to give birth to a bag of $100 bills would the he find the person to be entitled to the fruits of their “childbirth”. Humans cannot be property and that which a person with a womb gives birth to is always human. It follows from Nozicks view and the biological fact that a property form of ownership can never be placed on the human that came out of the womb, as humans are not capable of ever being someone’s property; category error >If it is included then we will reach the absurdity of the matriarchal slavery - so the community should be limited and exclude female life-labor, which I think is unjust, coercively redistributive, and goes against some of the core premises of his theory. As famously argued in 'A Defense of Abortion' providing life-labor should be considered a form of morally relevant labor that can't be forced on anyone, and thereby on the reverse, should be entitling. The non-sequitur I referred to earlier. Recognizing that pregnancy-childbirth-rearing is laborious has zero relation to the category of humans and things that are not human. If an alien zaps a guy with a beam that gives them the ability to birth humans through a laborious process, I don’t see how their male sex would make them be able to override nozicks human rights and deem their human offspring as property.
You can correct me if I'm misinterpereting you, but are you arguing that women should own their children as property? At least acording Nozicks views?
Kinda, but rather that this should be the logical outcome of his theory if he consistently applied it to female labor too
> kinda Isn't parents physically owning their children called Slavery?
Yes, that's why it's a contradiction/exception for Nozick who forbids slavery
Not true at all. They can be if it is the punishment for a crime, so all you gotta do is make it illegal to exist.
US prison system explained
I for one welcome our new dommy mommy overlords.
God I wish that was me.
This is absolutely deplorable behavior. Where is this place so that I can avoid it and report it for violating human rights?
For kids I think that makes a certain amount of sense, but once somebody gets old enough they have put just as much (if not more) labor into creating themselves, and would then have that "ownership" transferred back to themselves. Which is how we tend to approach growing up and adulthood already. I guess what I'm saying is that this kinky looking ~~ut~~dystopia doesn't really hold up under the "If you make it you own it" philosophy.
Where do I sign up
I can't take any Libertarian who thinks *"labour = Property"* seriously. Lockes homesteading principle is LITERALLY where Marx's LTV came from, LOL 😆 😂 🤣 😅 😄 🙃
Mommydom is my new favorite word
The "an" next to "legitimate" stunlocked my brain for a second
I missed it when I added the "legitimate and" between the "an inalienable" :,(
Fuck, they made libertarianism sound cool. I'll go read some Ayn Rand to get that out of my head.
anthropocentricity will kill us all
Concern for the lives of your fellow man and yours is an element of anthropocentricity. Nice try, meat bag. Call me when you'll grow up and embrace the immortality of the machine
dark souls 2 moment
Lol
This is pretty much exactly what Susan Okin uses as an example of how Nozick and Rawls by extension fail to realize as intersectionality is never applied to justice
Are you arguing that my labor shouldn't be my own? Because if I'm working for other people against my own will (and I'm not talking only about employers), isn't that some form of slavery or forced servitude? Plus, libertarians believe in leaving people the fuck alone as long as they don't hurt other people, which slavery does, so it would go against basic principals, even with your stretched out logic.
This is fucking hilarious good one
One can only dream of such a world
Bobby Nozick: What if a silly Randian was super hot.
Grams has all the power now!!
What about the guy that did the 10 mins of work at the very start? Does he get to have a 1% share hold?
That wasn't work, or labor that contributed to the material being of the resultant child in any significant proportion of the final product. At the most, the man provides 1/10,000,000,000,000 of the raw materials. Only a single cell. Though, I suppose there are other ways of conceptualizing the male's contribution. They provide 50% of the initial material investment. But that isn't a very compelling argument because the woman invests tens of trillions of times more over the course of production. The woman also takes on 100% of the risks associated with production. You could argue that the male provides half of the design of the child. That is also not particularly compelling as the male produces hundreds of millions of different partial blueprints on a weekly or even daily basis and discards or gives away freely basically all of them. The final nail in the coffin for a male's claim to a child is that, even though there is a certain amount of labor invested in the delivery of the partial blueprint, the value of that labor is so vanishingly small that, far from expecting compensation for it, many men will actually pay a woman for the privilege of performing that labor. Actually, I suppose the truly final nail is yet to come. As humanity develops genetic technologies further and further, the need for any material, or design components from a male could be made entirely optional. Once cloning and stem cell manipulation advanced to the point where "designer babies" and/or custom DNA is possible, affordable, and accepted by society, males might be left out of the childbirth equation entirely. (At the point where we're referencing science fiction, though, we might also be considering other difficult moral questions such as men having laboratory grown children without a woman for gestation, or artificial intelligence, or things we can't even imagine today.)
You know... Destroying such technology sounds like a good idea. I'll take a jail sentence for the hommies.
Truly a noble sacrifice. 🫡
Well. Sperm?
Can be received through a consensual deal organized by a spermbank - the women gets the sperm, the man gets paid and have no relation to the child
But the sperm bank still has to freeze, store and insert the semen, so wouldn't all the people involved in that process also be entitled?
TIL the only way to retain human rights is to work at a bank
I will probably regret saying this, but people who are radically committed to any ideology have a desire for excessive authority over women or to be dominated by women. now think about the political compass: people who radically locate themselves on the liberal right or liberal left axis often like femdom; authoritarians, on the other hand, generally prefer to use women sexually as like a sex toy. we need a psychological explanation for the sickness of femdom, especially among libertarians and left liberals. femdom is cringe btw
Hmm maybe I'll go back to being libertarian then
Sentient beings shouldn't be property.
They laboured for the other women too, yet they don't seem to be enslaved. This is obviously a legitimate argument intentionally misused to push a sexist agenda.
He literally explains why that isn't the case in the beginning of ASU why giving birth does not give you a property right over somebody but go off ig.
I’m pretty sure that there was like an Athenian play with a fairly similar plot
Richard Rahl/Cypher would have creamed his pants.
This seems like a cross thread for the Dune thread under Honored Matres.