The video explores John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, questioning its ability to account for higher and lower pleasures, individual rights, and justice. Mill suggests that respecting individual rights leads to the betterment of society, but the discussion challenges whether that is the sole or correct reason for upholding justice. It questions Mill's stance by proposing that intrinsic respect for individuals might go beyond a utilitarian framework.

The conversation transitions to libertarianism, a philosophy emphasizing individual rights and autonomy, particularly the right to liberty as explained by Robert Nozick. Libertarians argue against paternalist legislation and taxation for income Redistribution, characterizing such actions as coercive. The panel examines whether these acts truly respect individual self-ownership and whether they strengthen or weaken the societal fabric.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. Utilitarianism [ˌjuːtɪˌlɛˈtɛˌrɪəˌnɪzəm] - (n.) - A doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

...Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary.

2. Distinguish [dɪˈstɪŋɡwɪʃ] - (v.) - Recognize or treat as different.

...to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.

3. Sacerd [ˈseɪkrɪd] - (adj.) - Regarded with reverence and respect.

...that justice is the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part of morality.

4. Coercion [kōˈərʃən] - (n.) - The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

...and the state, the government has no business coercing them.

5. Redistribution [riːˌdɪstrɪˈbjuːʃən] - (n.) - The distribution of something in a different way, typically to achieve fairness.

...is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose of redistributing income...

6. Libertarianism [ˌlɪbərˈtɛˌrɪəˌnɪzəm] - (n.) - A political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective.

...takes individual rights seriously. It's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty.

7. Entitlement [ɪnˈtaɪtlmənt] - (n.) - A right to benefits specified by law or contract.

...it means taking the fruits of my labor. But if the state has the right to take my earnings or the fruits of my labor...

8. Intrinsic [ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk] - (adj.) - Belonging naturally; essential.

...is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual?

9. Acquisition [ˌækwɪˈzɪʃən] - (n.) - The act of gaining possession of something.

...he calls justice in Acquisition or in initial holdings.

10. Paternalist [pəˈtɜrnəlɪst] - (adj.) - Relating to the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates for their own good.

...one of them is paternalist legislation that's passing laws that protect people from themselves.

Exploring the Intricacies of Utilitarianism and Libertarian Philosophy

When we finished last time, we were looking at John Stuart Mill's attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's Utilitarianism. In his book Utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary. It is possible, within the utilitarian framework, to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures. It is possible to make Qualitative distinctions of worth. And we tested that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts. And the results of our experiment seem to call into question Mill's distinction, because a great many of you reported that you prefer the Simpsons, but that you still consider Shakespeare to be the higher or the worthier pleasure. That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.

What about Mill's attempt to account for the specially weighty character of individual rights and justice? In chapter five of Utilitarianism? He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect. In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding 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 all morality? Well, he says, because in the long run, if we do justice and if we respect rights, society as a whole will be better off in the long run.

Well, what about that? What if we have a case where making an exception and violating individual rights actually will make people better off in the long run? Is it all right then, to use people? And there's a further objection that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights. Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run works out as he says it will, such that respecting people's rights is a way of making everybody better off in the long run. Is that the right reason? Is that the only reason to respect people?

If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from the healthy patient who came in for a checkup to save five lives, there would be adverse effects in the long run. Eventually, people would learn about this and would stop going in for checkups. Is it the right reason? Is the only reason that you, as the doctor, won't yank the organs out of the healthy patient that you think, well, if I use him in this way, in the long run, more lives will be lost? Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual? And if that reason matters, then it's not so clear that even mill's Utilitarianism can take account of it fully.

To examine these two worries or objections to mill's defense, we need to push further. And we need to ask, in the case of higher or worthier pleasures, are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worth of pleasures? If so, what do they look like? That's one question. In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity or respect for a person that are not, strictly speaking, utilitarian, we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories of rights that can explain the Intuition which even mill shares, the Intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.

Today we turn to one of those strong theories of rights. Strong theories of rights say individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose. Well, for the sake of maximizing utility, individuals are separate beings with separate lives, worthy of respect. And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories of rights, it's a mistake to think about justice or law by just adding up preferences and values. The strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism.

Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously. It's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty. Precisely because we are separate, individual beings, we're not available to any use that the society might desire or devise. Precisely because we are individual, separate human beings, we have a fundamental right to liberty. And that means a right 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 read for this course, puts it this individuals have rights. So strong and far reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do. So what does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state? Well, there are three things that most modern states do that on. The libertarian theory of rights are illegitimate, are unjust. One of them is paternalist legislation that's passing laws that protect people from themselves, seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.

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 seatbelts. By law, it's Coercion. So no paternalist legislation, number one. Number two, no morals legislation. Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens or try to give expression to the moral values 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 example of legislation offered in the name of promoting morality. Traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians.

The libertarian says, nobody else is harmed, nobody else's rights are violated. So the state should get out of the business entirely of trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation. And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor. Redistribution is a kind, if you think about it, says the libertarian, is 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 and earn a lot of money.

Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be a minimal state 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 feature of the libertarian view. I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why. But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake, consider the distribution of wealth in the United States. The United States is among the most inegalitarian societies as far as the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies. Now, is this just or unjust?

Well, what does the libertarian say? Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you. You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust. You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or a result, whether it's just or unjust. You have to know how it came to be. You can't just look at the end state or the result. You have to look at two principles. The first, he calls justice in Acquisition or in initial holdings. And what that means simply is, did people get the things they use to make their money fairly? So we need to know, was there justice in the initial holdings? Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods that enabled them to make all that money, if not, if they were entitled to whatever it was that enabled them to gather the wealth? The first principle is met.

The second principle is, did the distribution arise from the operation of free consent, people buying and trading on the market? As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to a free market conception of justice, provided people got what they used fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results from the free choice of individuals buying and selling things. The distribution is just and if not, it's unjust. So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion, take an actual example. Who's the wealthiest person in the United States? Wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gateshead it is. That's right. Here 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, remember there was a controversy. Donors, big campaign contributors, were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House. I think if you contributed $25,000 or above, someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom. Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night for the next 66,000 years.

Somebody else figured out now how much does he get paid on an hourly basis? And so they figured out since he began Microsoft. Suppose he worked, what, 14 hours per day? Reasonable guess. And you calculate this net wealth. It turns out that his rate of pay is over $150. Not per hour, not per minute. $150 more than $150 per second. Which means that if on his way to the office gates noticed $100 bill on the street, it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick and pick it up.

Now most of you will say, someone that wealthy, surely we can tax them to meet the pressing needs of people who lack an education or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing. They need it more than he does. And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do? What tax 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 scarcely going to notice it, but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare of those at the bottom.

But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up and aggregate preferences and satisfactions. That way we have to respect persons. And if he earned that money fairly without violating anybody else's rights, in accordance with the two principles of justice in Acquisition and justice in transfer, then it would be wrong. It would be a form of Coercion to take it away.

Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as 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 $31 million. And then he made another $47 million in endorsements for Nike and other companies. So his income was, in one year, 78 million to require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to the government to support good causes like food and healthcare and housing and education for the poor. That's Coercion. That's unjust. That violates his rights. And that's why Redistribution is wrong.

Now, how many agree with that argument? Agree with the libertarian argument that Redistribution, for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong? And how many disagree with that argument? All right, let's begin with those who disagree. What's wrong with the libertarian case against Redistribution? Yes, I think these people, like Michael Jordan have received, we're talking about working within a society and they received a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation in return to give that through Redistribution.

You know, you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as someone who works, you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day, but he's receiving more. I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work. All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism. Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor? Go ahead. My name's Joe and I collect skateboards. I've since bought 100 skateboards. I live in a society of 100 people. I'm the only one with skateboards. Suddenly everyone decides they want to skateboard. They come into my house, they take my. They take 99 of my skateboards. I think that is unjust.

Now, I think in certain circumstances it becomes necessary to overlook that injustice. Perhaps condone that injustice as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food. If people are on the verge of dying, perhaps it is necessary to overlook that injustice. But I think it's important to keep in mind that we're still committing injustice by taking people's belongings or assets. Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say, at a 33% tax rate for good causes to feed the hungry, is theft? I think it's unjust. Yes, I do believe it's theft. 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, at least in my opinion, and by the libertarian opinion, he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him. So to take it from him is by definition theft. All right, let's hear if there's. Who wants to reply to Joe? Yes, go ahead. I don't think this is necessarily a case in which you have 99 skateboards and the government, or you have 100 skateboards and the government's taking 99 of them. It's like you have more skateboards than there are days in a year. You have more skateboards than you're going to be able to use in your entire lifetime, and the government is taking part of those. And I think that if you're operating in a society in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth, that that allows for people to amass so much wealth that people who haven't started from this very, the equal footing in our hypothetical situation that doesn't exist in our real society get undercut for the rest of their lives.

So you're worried that if there isn't some degree of Redistribution, if some are left at the bottom, there will be no genuine equality of opportunity. All right, the idea that taxation is theft. Nozick takes that point one step further. He agrees that it's theft. He's more demanding than Joe. Joe says it is theft. 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 family. So Joe is a, what would you call yourself? A compassionate quasi libertarian.

Nozick says, if you think about it, taxation amounts to the taking of earnings. In other words, it means taking the fruits of my labor. But if the state has the right to take my earnings or the fruits of my labor, isn't that morally the same as, according to the state, the right to claim a portion of my labor. So taxation actually is morally equivalent to forced labor because forced labor involves the taking of my leisure, my time, my efforts, just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor. And so for Nozick and for the libertarians, taxation for Redistribution is theft as, but not only theft, it's morally equivalent to laying claim to certain 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 fruits of my labor, that implies that it really has an entitlement to my labor itself. And what is forced labor? Forced labor, Nozick points out, is what is slavery? Because if I don't have the right, the sole right to my own labor, then that's really to say that the government or the political community is a part owner in me. And what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me, if you think about it, it means that I'm a slave, that I don't own myself. So what this line of reasoning brings us to is the fundamental principle that underlies the libertarian case for rights. What is that principle? It's the idea that I own myself. It's the idea of self possession. If you want to take rights seriously, if you don't want to just regard people as collections of preferences, the fundamental moral idea to which you will be led is the idea that we are the owners or the proprietors of our own person.

And that's why Utilitarianism goes wrong. And that's why it's wrong to yank the organs from that healthy patient. You're acting as if that patient 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 from ourselves 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 tax the rich, to help the poor, even for good causes, even to help those who are displaced by the hurricane Katrina. Ask them to give charity. But if you tax them, it's like forcing them to labor. Could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip the next week's games 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 objections to the libertarian argument, but if you want to reject it, you have to break into this chain of reasoning, which goes, taking my earnings is like taking my labor, but taking my labor is making me a slave. And if you disagree with that, you must believe in the principle of self possession. Those who disagree, gather your objections and we'll begin with them next time. Anyone like to take up that point? Yes. I feel like when you live in a society, you give up that right. I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out 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 time about libertarianism. I want to go back to the arguments for and against the Redistribution of income. But before we do that, just one word about the minimal state. Milton Friedman, a libertarian economist, he points out that many of the functions that we take for granted as properly belonging to government, don't they are paternalists. One example he gives is Social Security. He says it's a good idea for people to save for their retirement during their earning years, 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 sake of their retirement.

If people want to take the chance, or if people want to live big today and live a poor retirement, that should be their choice. They should be free to make those judgments and take those risks. So even Social Security would still be at odds with the minimal state that Milton Friedman argued for. It's sometimes thought that collective goods like police protection and fire protection will inevitably create the problem of free riders unless they're publicly provided. But there are ways to prevent free riders. There are ways to restrict even seemingly collective goods like fire protection. I read an article a while back about a private fire company, the Salem Fire Corporation, in Arkansas. You can sign up with the Salem Fire Corporation, pay a yearly subscription fee, and if your house catches on fire, they will come and put out the fire. But they won't put out everybody's fire.

They will only put it out if it's a fire in the home of a subscriber or if it starts to spread and to threaten the home of a subscriber. The newspaper article told the story of a homeowner who had subscribed to this company in the past but failed to renew his subscription. His house caught on fire. The Salem Fire Corporation showed up with its trucks and watched the house burn, just making sure that it didn't spread. The fire chief was asked. Well, he wasn't exactly the fire chief. I guess he was the CEO. He was asked, how can you stand by with fire equipment and allow a person's home to burn? He replied, once we verified there was no danger to a member's property, we had no choice but to back off. According to our rules. If we responded to all fires, he said, there would be no incentive to subscribe.

The homeowner, in this case tried to renew his subscription at the scene of the fire, but the head of the company refused. You can't wreck your car, he said, and then buy insurance for it later. So even public goods that we take for granted as being within the proper province of government, can many of them in principle, be isolated, made exclusive to those who pay. That's all to do with the question of collective goods and the libertarian's injunction against paternalism. But let's go back now to the arguments about Redistribution. Now, underlying the libertarian's case for the minimal state is a worry about Coercion. But what's wrong with Coercion?

The libertarian offers 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 moral fact of self possession or self ownership. The libertarian's argument against Redistribution begins with this fundamental idea that we own ourselves. Nozick says that if the society as a whole can go to Bill Gates or go to Michael Jordan and tax away a portion of their wealth, what the society is really asserting is a collective property right in Bill Gates or in Michael Jordan. But that violates 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 is to give the libertarians among us a chance to answer the objections that have been raised. And some have been, some have already identified themselves and have agreed to come and make the case for libertarianism to reply to the objections that have been raised. So raise your hand if you are among the libertarians who's prepared to stand up for the theory and respond to the objections. You are. Alex Harris. Alex Harris, who's been a, who's been a star on the weblog. All right, Alex, come here.

Stand up. Come, we'll create a libertarian corner over here. And who else? Other libertarians who will join. What's your name? John Sheffield. John Sheffield. Who else wants to join? Other brave libertarians who are prepared to take on? Yes. What's your name? Julia Roto. Julia Roto. Julia, come join us over there. Now, while the, while team libertarian, Julia, John. Alex, while team libertarian is gathering over there, let me just summarize the main objections that I've heard in class and on the website. Objection number one. And here I'll come down to, I want to talk to team libertarian over here. So objection number one is that the poor need the money more. That's an obvious objection, a lot more than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.

Objection number two. It's not really slavery to tax, because at least in a democratic society, it's not a slaveholder. It's congress. It's a democratic. You're smiling, Alex. Already you're confident you can reply to all of these? So taxation by consent of the governed is not coerced. Third, some people have said, don't the successful, like Gates, owe a debt to society for their success that they repay by paying taxes? Who wants to respond to the first one? The poor need the money more. John. John. All right, John, what's the answer here? I'll hold it.

All right. The poor need the money more. That's quite obvious. I could use the money. You know, I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates give me a million dollars. I mean, I'd take a thousand. But at some point you have to understand that the benefits of Redistribution of wealth don't justify the initial violation of the property. Right. If you look at the argument, the poor need the money more, at no point in that argument do you contradict the fact that we've extrapolated from agreed upon principles that people own themselves. We've extrapolated that people have property rights. And so whether or not it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even a necessary thing for the survival of some people, we don't see that that justifies the violation of the right that we've logically extrapolated.

And so that also, I mean, there still exists this institution of like, individual Philanthropy. Milton Friedman makes this argument. So Bill Gates can give to charity if he wants to. Right. But it would still be wrong to coerce him. Exactly. To meet the needs of the poor. Exactly. Are the two of you happy with that reply? Anything to add? All right, go ahead, Julie. I think, Julia? Yes, I think I could also add, I guess I could hold add that there's a difference between needing something and deserving something. I mean, in ideal society, everyone's needs to be meth.

But here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society? And. Yeah, and the poor don't deserve, don't deserve the benefits that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help them. Based on what we've come up with here, I don't think you deserve something like that. All right, let me push you a little bit on that, Julia. The victims of Hurricane Katrina are in desperate need of help. Would you say that they don't deserve help that would come from the federal government through taxation? Okay, that's a difficult question. I think this is a case where they need help, not deserve it. But I think, again, if you hit a certain level of requirements to meet sustenance, you're going to need help. Like if you don't have food or a place to live, that's a case of need.

So need is one thing and dessert is another. Exactly. All right. Who would like to reply? Yes, going back to the first point that he made about the property rights of the individual, the property rights are established and enforced by the government, which is a democratic government. And we have representatives. When first there was right. If you live in a society that operates under those rules, then it should be up to the government to decide how those resources that come out through taxation are distributed, because it is through the consent of the government. And if you disagree with it, you don't have to live in that society where that operates. All right, good.

And tell me your name. Raul. Raul is pointing out. Actually, Raul is invoking point number two. If the taxation is by the consent of the governed, it's not coerced. It's legitimate. Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United States. They get to vote for Congress. They get to vote their policy convictions 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 middle 80% deciding what the top 10% are doing for the bottom 10%. Wait, wait, wait, wait. John, not as excited. Majority. Don't you believe in democracy?

Well, right, but don't you believe in the. I mean, you say 80%, 10%, majority, majority rule is what? The majority. Exactly. But in a democracy, aren't you for democracy? Yes, I'm for democracy, but hang on, hang on, hang on. Democracy and mob rule aren't the same thing. Mob rule. Mob rule. Exactly. But in an open society, you have a recourse to address that through your representatives. And if the majority of the consent of those who are governed doesn't agree with you, then you know you're choosing to live in a society, and you have to operate under what the majority of society concludes. All right, Alex, on democracy. Democracy. What about that? The fact that I have won 500,000th of a vote for one representative in Congress is not the same thing as my having the ability to decide for myself how to use my property rights.

I'm a drop in the bucket. And, you know, well, you might lose the vote. Exactly. And they might take. And I will. I mean, I don't have the decision right now of whether or not to pay taxes. If I don't, I get locked in jail or they tell me to get out of the country. But, Alex, Alex, let me make a small case for democracy and see what you would say. Why can't you. We live in a democratic society with freedom of speech. Why can't you take to the hustings, persuade your fellow citizens that taxation is unjust, and try to get a majority? I don't think that people should be.

Should have to convince 280 million others simply in order to exercise their own rights, in order to not have their self ownership violated. I think people should be able to do that without having to convince 280 million people. Does that mean you're against democracy as a whole? No, I just believe in a very limited form of democracy whereby we have a constitution that severely limits the scope of what decisions can be made democratically. All right, so you're saying that democracy is fine except where fundamental rights are involved. And I think you could win if you're going on the hustings, let me add one element to the argument you might make.

Maybe you could say, put aside the economic debates, taxation. Suppose the individual right to religious liberty were at stake. Then, Alex, you could say, on the hustings, surely you would all agree that we shouldn't put the right to individual liberty up to a vote. Yeah, that's exactly right. And that's why we have constitutional amendments and why we make it so hard to amend our constitution. So you would say that the right to private property, the right of Michael Jordan to keep all the money he makes, at least to protect it from Redistribution, is the same kind of right with the same kind of weight as the right to freedom of speech, the right to religious liberty, rights that should trump what the majority wants?

Absolutely. The reason why we have a right to free speech is because we have a right to own ourselves, to exercise our voice in any way that we choose. All right, good. All right, so there we. All right, who would like to respond to that argument about democracy being okay up there? Stand up. I think comparing religion, economics, it's not the same thing. The reason why Bill Gates was able to make so much money is because we live in an economically and socially stable society. And if the government didn't provide for the poorest 10%, as you say, through taxation, then we would need more money for police to prevent crime.

And so either way, like, there would be more taxes taken away to provide what you guys call, like, the necessary things that the government provides. What's your name? Anna. Anna, let me ask you this. Why is the fundamental right to religious liberty different from the right Alex asserts 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 if there wasn't a socially. Like, if society wasn't stable. And that's completely different from religion.

That's like something personal, something that you can practice on your own, in your own home. Whereas, like, me, practicing my religion is not going to affect the next person. But if I'm poor and I'm desperate, like, I might commit a crime to feed my family and that can affect others. Okay, good. Thank you. Would it be wrong for someone to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family? Is that wrong? I believe that it is. Let's take a quick poll of the three of you. It is. You say yes, it is wrong. It violates property rights. It's wrong even to save a starving family. I mean, there are definitely other ways around that. And by justifying.

No, hang on, hang on. Before you laugh at me, that didn't work. Before justifying the act of stealing, you have to look at violating the right that we've already agreed exists the right of self possession and the possession of, I mean, your own things. We agree on property rights. We agree it's stealing. Yeah. So property rights, stealing, that's not the issue. All right, but. So why is it wrong to steal, even to feed your starving family? Sort of the original argument that I made in the very first question you asked. The benefits of an action don't justify. Don't make the action. Just.

What would you say, Julia? Is it all right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family or to steal a drug that your child needs to survive? I think I'm okay with that. Honestly, even from a libertarian standpoint, I think that. Okay, saying that you can just take money arbitrarily from people who have a lot to go to, this pool of people who need it, but you have an individual who's acting on their own behalf to kind of save themselves. I mean, I think you said they from the idea of, like, self possession, they're also in charge of protecting themselves and keeping themselves alive. So therefore, even from a libertarian standpoint, that might be okay.

All right, that's good. That's good. All right. What about, what about number three up here? Isn't it the case that the successful, the wealthy owe a debt? They didn't do that all by themselves. They had to cooperate with other people, that they, they owe a debt to society. And that, that's expressed in taxation. You want to take that on, Julie? Okay. This one. I believe that there is not a debt to society in the sense that how did these people become wealthy? They did something that society valued highly. I think that society has already been giving, been fighting for them. If anything, I think everything's canceled out. They provided a service to society and society responded by somehow they got their wealth. So be concrete.

In the case of Michael Jordan, some, I mean, to illustrate your point, there were people who helped him make the money, the teammates, the coach, people who taught him how to play. But they. You're saying. But they've all been paid for their services. Exactly. And society derived a lot of benefit and pleasure from watching Michael Jordan play. I think that that's how he paid his debt to society. Good. Who? Would anyone like to take up that point? Yes, I think that there's a problem here, that we're assuming that a person has self possession when they live in a society. I feel like when you live in a society, you give up that right. I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone because they offend me, that is self possession. Because I live in a society, I cannot do that.

I think it's kind of equivalent to say because I have more money, I have resources that can save people's lives. Is it not okay for the government to take that from me? It's self possession only to a certain extent because I'm living in a society where I have to take account of the people around me. So are you question, what's your name? Victoria. 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.

All right, I want to quickly get the response of the libertarian team to the last point. The last point builds on, well, maybe it builds on Victoria's suggestion that we don't own ourselves because it says that Bill Gates is wealthy, that Michael Jordan makes a huge income isn't wholly their own doing. It's the product of a lot of luck. And so we can't claim that they morally deserve all the money they make. Who wants to reply to that? Alex, you certainly could make the case that it is not their wealth is not appropriate to the goodness in their hearts. But that's not really the morally relevant issue. The point is that they have received what they have through the free exchange of people who have given them their holdings, usually in exchange for providing some other service.

Good enough. I want to try to sum up what we've learned from this discussion, but first, let's thank John, Alex, and Julia for an excellent, really wonderful job. Toward the end of the discussion just now, Victoria challenged the premise of this line of reasoning, this libertarian logic. Well, maybe she suggested we don't own ourselves after all. If you reject the libertarian case against Redistribution. There would seem to be an incentive to break into the libertarian line of reasoning at the earliest, 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 premise, the big idea underlying the libertarian argument? Is it true that we own ourselves, or can we do without that idea and still avoid what libertarians want to avoid, creating a society and an account of justice, where some people can be just 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 people as means for the collective happiness by saying, the way to put a stop to that utilitarian logic of using persons is to resort to the intuitively powerful idea that we are the proprietors of our own person. That's Alex and Julia and John and Robert Nozick.

What are the consequences for a theory of justice and an account of rights, of calling into question the idea of self possession? Does it mean that we're back to Utilitarianism and using people and aggregating preferences and pushing the fat man off the bridge? Nozick doesn't himself fully develop the idea of self possession. He borrows it from an earlier philosopher, John Locke. John Locke accounted for the rise of private property from the state of nature by a chain of reasoning very similar to the one that Nozick and the libertarians use. John Locke said, private property arises because when we mix our labor with things, unowned things, we come to acquire a property right in those things. And the reason, the reason is that we own our own labor, and the reason for that we are the proprietors, the owners of our own person.

And so in order to examine the moral force of the libertarian claim that we own ourselves, we need to turn to the english political philosopher John locked and examine his account of private property and self ownership. And that's what we'll do. Next time.

Philosophy, Ethics, Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, Justice, Human Rights