Left-libertarian theory of rights
View/ Open
Millett Fisher2012.doc (1.564Mb)
Date
29/06/2012Author
Millett Fisher, Arabella Marie Amy
Fisher, Arabella Marie Amy Millett
Metadata
Abstract
The human rights that are defended in libertarian literature tend to be limited in
scope, which entails that the duties that people can be compelled to fulfil are
similarly minimal. For this reason a commitment to libertarianism tends to be seen as
incompatible with support for subsistence rights, enforceable positive duties, and
redistributive taxation, since each one of these issues may require the infringement of
libertarian property rights. In this thesis I aim to challenge these assumptions about
libertarianism and to show that if a more plausible reading of libertarianism is
adopted – what has come to be known as left-libertarianism – then this will generate
a more substantial range of rights and correlative duties which are not only
compatible with redistributive taxation, but in fact entail it.
I show that libertarianism, despite its contention that human rights are exclusively
negative, does not rule out subsistence rights provided that these are understood as
negative rights, for example: a right not to be deprived of the means of subsistence,
or deprived of a clean living environment. Negative rights can be violated not only
by individuals or by institutions, but also by individuals supporting institutions. In
order to respect the negative rights of others it is necessary to refrain from supporting
or contributing to institutions that violate these rights. Moreover, failure to respect
these rights brings about a positive duty of rectification, demonstrating the potential
for positive libertarian duties even in the absence of positive rights. Since the manner
in which rights can be violated is extensive, so is the scope of those individuals that
owe rectification. The fundamental libertarian rights of self-ownership, which I
characterise as three property rights – over the body, over the faculties (including
talents, abilities and labour) and over what one can produce through exercising those
faculties in conjunction with the body – demonstrate how we can come to have
property rights over external objects, but self-ownership does not confer permanent
private property rights over unlimited external worldly resources. In fact, a robust
right of self-ownership is incompatible with the radically inegalitarian appropriation
with which libertarianism is ordinarily associated. Given the equal rights of selfownership
of every individual, it is far more plausible to conceive of the world as
held in some egalitarian manner, rather than as unowned and available for
appropriation in such a way that would disadvantage latecomers. I propose an
egalitarian understanding of world ownership which comprises common ownership
of land, and joint ownership of other external worldly resources such as oil and
minerals. Taking the injustice of radically inegalitarian appropriation in conjunction
with a duty to rectify past injustices, there follows a libertarian argument for
redistribution, but crucially this redistributive taxation is collected not on income but
on natural resource use. On a left-libertarian theory of rights, then, there is no right to
appropriate unlimited resources, but there is a right to redistribution in the event of
past injustices, including the misappropriation of worldly resources.