Fascism or Broccoli?
One aspect that calls for emphasis is the understanding of property rights at work here. Her remark could be interpreted as meaning that there really is no such thing as private property. It is actually the possession of the State – we let you use some of it, but we’ll take what we want to as we see fit. I think this is logically implicit in her claim, but I wonder whether she actually thinks this, or whether she thinks that there is such a thing as private property (e.g., her house), but that massive redistribution is a good thing anyway. The former would be more frightening and morally mistaken, but logically consistent. The latter might seem less scary, because it leaves open the possibility that she could be persuaded otherwise, but since it’s logically contradictory, there’s no reason to be optimistic about rational persuasion. People who are rational but who hold principles that (you think) are wrong can be persuaded otherwise. But people who are willing to entertain contradictory beliefs are virtually impervious to rational persuasion. As Aristotle put it, it’s like arguing with a plant (Metaphysics 1006a15). You really can’t have it both ways – either there is such a thing as private property, or there isn’t. If there is, then Hillary’s attitude is wrong. If she really thinks that all property belongs to the State, or society, or what have you, well, let’s talk.
comments powered by Disqus
Max Schwing - 7/1/2004
Perhaps, they have not really a definition what is in the category of property. In some way, I believe they see money and other properties (like House, car etc.) as different things, not belonging in one category...
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign