Episode 03: "FREE TO CHOOSE" Episode 03: "FREI ZU WÄHLEN" Episodio 03: "LIBRES PARA ELEGIR" Épisode 03 : "LIBRE DE CHOISIR" エピソード03："FREE TO CHOOSE" Epizodas 03: "Laisvas pasirinkimas" Odcinek 03: "WOLNOŚĆ WYBORU" Episódio 03: "FREE TO CHOOSE" (livre para escolher) Эпизод 03: "СВОБОДА ВЫБОРА" Bölüm 03: "SEÇMEKTE ÖZGÜRSÜNÜZ" Епізод 03: "СВОБОДА ВИБОРУ" 第03集：“自由选择” 第03集：“自由選擇”

Funding for this program is provided by

Additional funding provided by

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 piaceri. È possibile fare delle distinzioni qualitative di valore 乐趣。可以对价值进行定性区分

and we tested that idea

with the Simpsons

and the Shakespeare excerpts. e i brani di Shakespeare.

And the results of our experiment

seem to call into question

Mill's distinction

because a great many of you perché molti di voi

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 Che dire del tentativo di Mill di rendere conto

for the specially weighty character per il carattere particolarmente pesante

of individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism?

He wants to say that individual rights

are worthy sono degni

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. e la parte più incomparabilmente vincolante della morale.

But the same challenge Ma la stessa sfida

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 e la parte più vincolante di tutta la morale? Beh, dice perché a lungo andare

if we do justice and if we respect rights se facciamo giustizia e se rispettiamo i diritti

society as a whole la società nel suo complesso

will be better off in the long run. sarà migliore nel lungo periodo.

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 meglio nel lungo periodo? È giusto allora

to use people?

And there's a further E c'è un ulteriore

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 Supponiamo che il calcolo utilitaristico, nel lungo periodo, funzioni come dice lui.

such that respecting people's rights

is a way of making everybody better off è un modo per far sì che tutti stiano meglio

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 Se il medico va a prelevare gli organi da un paziente sano che è venuto a fare un controllo, il medico non può fare nulla.

to save five lives

there would be adverse effects in the long run.

Eventually people would learn about this Alla fine le persone sarebbero venute a conoscenza di questo

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 non strapperà gli organi da un paziente sano.

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. può tenerne conto.

Fully to examine these two

worries or objections

to Mill's defense

we need to push further. dobbiamo spingere di più.

We need to ask

in the case of higher or worthier pleasures nel caso di piaceri più elevati o degni di nota 在更高或更有价值的快乐的情况下

are there theories of the good life 有没有关于美好生活的理论

that can provide independent moral standards 能够提供独立的道德标准

for the worth of pleasures? 为了快乐的价值？

If so what do they look like? Se sì, che aspetto hanno? 如果是的话，它们是什么样子的？

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 se sospettiamo che Mill si appoggia implicitamente a nozioni di dignità umana o di rispetto per

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 che anche Mill condivide

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 le persone contano

not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose

or for the sake of maximizing utility. o per massimizzare l'utilità.

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 desiderio o di ideazione. Proprio perché siamo individui

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 way.

Individuals have rights

so strong and far-reaching are these rights Questi diritti sono così forti e di così ampia portata

that they raise the question of what, if anything, 他们提出了一个问题：如果有的话，

the state may do. lo Stato può fare. 国家可能会这样做。

So what does libertarianism say 那么自由主义怎么说

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. sono ingiusti.

One of them

is paternalist legislation.

That's passing laws that protect people from themselves. Questo significa approvare leggi che proteggono le persone da se stesse.

Seat belt 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 ma questo dovrebbe dipendere da loro

and the state, e lo Stato,

the government,

has no business coercing them, non ha il diritto di costringerli,

to wear seat belts

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 sono state leggi che impediscono

sexual intimacy intimità sessuale

between

gays and lesbians.

The libertarian says

nobody else is harmed, nessun altro viene danneggiato,

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. o di emanare leggi sulla morale.

And the third kind of law

or policy

that is ruled out che è escluso

on the libertarian philosophy

is any taxation

or other policy

that serves the purpose

of redistributing income or wealth di ridistribuzione del reddito o della ricchezza

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 A cosa corrisponde

is theft è un furto

by the state dallo Stato

or by the majority, o dalla maggioranza,

if we're talking about a democracy,

from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money. da persone che si dà il caso che facciano molto bene e guadagnino molto denaro.

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 contratti e

property rights,

but that's it. ma questo è tutto.

Now,

I want to get your reactions

to this third

feature

of the libertarian view. I want to see

who among you chi tra voi

agree with that idea and who disagree

and why.

But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake, Ma solo per renderlo concreto e per capire cosa c'è in gioco,

consider the distribution of wealth considerare la distribuzione della ricchezza

in the United States.

The United States is among the most

inegalitarian societies as far as the distribution of wealth società inegalitarie per quanto riguarda la distribuzione della ricchezza

of all the advanced democracies.

Now, is this just Ora, questo è solo

or unjust? o ingiusto?

Well, what does the libertarian say?

The libertarian says

you can't know just from the facts

I've just given you. Vi ho appena dato.

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 Non si può sapere solo osservando un modello o una distribuzione o un risultato.

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 La prima la chiama giustizia nell'acquisizione

or in initial holdings. o in partecipazioni iniziali.

And what that means simply is

did people get the things they use to make their money fairly? le persone hanno ottenuto in modo equo le cose che usano per fare i loro soldi?

So we need to know

was there justice in the initial holdings? Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods C'è stata giustizia nelle aziende iniziali? Hanno rubato la terra o la fabbrica o i beni?

that enabled them to make all that money? che ha permesso loro di fare tutti quei soldi?

If not,

if they were entitled to whatever it was that enabled them to se avessero diritto a qualsiasi cosa che permettesse loro di

gather the wealth, raccogliere la ricchezza,

the first principle is met. il primo principio è soddisfatto.

The second principle is

did the distribution arise la distribuzione è avvenuta

from the operation of free consent? dal funzionamento del libero consenso?

People buying and trading on the market. Persone che acquistano e commerciano sul mercato.

As you can see the libertarian idea of justice

corresponds to a free market

conception of justice.

Provided people Persone fornite

got what they used hanno ottenuto quello che hanno usato

fairly,

didn't steal it, non l'ha rubata,

and provided e ha fornito

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? negli Stati Uniti? La persona più ricca del mondo?

Bill Gates. Bill Gates.

It is.

That's right.

Here he is.

You'd be happy too. Anche tu saresti felice.

Now, what's his net worth? Qual è il suo patrimonio netto?

Anybody have any idea?

That's a big number.

During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy, donors, big campaign contributors Durante gli anni di Clinton, ricordiamo che ci fu una controversia, i donatori, i grandi contribuenti della campagna elettorale 记得克林顿执政期间，曾有一场争议，捐赠者，竞选大额捐款者

were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House? sono stati invitati a pernottare nella camera da letto di Lincoln alla Casa Bianca?

I think if you contributed $25,000 or above,

someone figured out qualcuno ha capito

at the median contribution al contributo mediano

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

how much does he get paid on an hourly basis? quanto viene pagato su base oraria?

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. questa ricchezza netta.

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

which means

that if on his way to the office che, se si sta recando in ufficio

Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street, Gates ha notato una banconota da cento dollari per strada,

it wouldn't be worth his time to stop 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 che non hanno un'istruzione

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 non possiamo semplicemente sommare

and aggregate e aggregato

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 Il suo reddito da solo

in one year was thirty one million dollars

and then he made another forty seven million dollars in endorsements for Nike and other

companies.

So his income

was

in one year seventy eight million

to require him to pay

let's say a third of his earnings Diciamo un terzo dei suoi guadagni.

to the government

to support good causes

like food and health care 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 twelve hours fourteen hours a day fare il bucato dodici ore e quattordici ore al giorno

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 è tutto a carico del suo patrimonio di conoscenze.

you know hard work.

Let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.

Why would it be wrong in principle

to tax the rich to help the poor?

My name's Joe and I collect skateboards.

I've since bought a hundred skateboards. I live in a society of a hundred people. Da allora ho comprato un centinaio di skateboard. Vivo in una società di cento persone.

I'm the only one with skateboards. Suddenly everyone decides they want a skateboard.

They come into my house, they take my

they take ninety nine of my skateboards.

I think that is unjust.

Now I think in certain circumstances

it becomes necessary to overlook that injustice, perhaps condone that diventa necessario trascurare quell'ingiustizia, forse condonare quella

injustice

as in the case of the cabin boy being killed

for food. If people are on the verge of dying, perhaps per il cibo. Se le persone sono sul punto di morire, forse

it is necessary

to overlook that injustice but I think it's important to keep in mind di trascurare questa ingiustizia, ma penso che sia importante tenere a mente

that we're still committing injustice

by taking people's belongings or assets. Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say at a prendendo i beni o le proprietà delle persone. Sta dicendo che tassare Michael Jordan, ad esempio ad un

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 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. appartiene a lui, quindi sottrarglielo è per definizione un furto.

Alright let's see if there's a...

Who wants to reply to Joe?

Yes, go ahead.

I don't think this is necessarily a case in which you have ninety nine skateboards

and

the government... or you have a hundred skateboards and the government's taking ninety nine 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's...

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 proprio questo... la parità di condizioni nella nostra situazione ipotetica

that doesn't exist in our real society

get undercut for the rest of their lives. vengono sottoquotati per il resto della loro vita.

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.

The idea that taxation is theft

Nozick takes that point one step further. Nozick fa un ulteriore passo avanti.

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 forse in un caso estremo è giustificato

maybe

a parent

is justified in stealing a loaf of bread è giustificato a rubare una pagnotta di pane

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. equivale all'acquisizione di un guadagno.

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 come secondo lo Stato

the right

to claim

a portion of my labor?

So taxation actually

is morally equivalent

to forced labor ai lavori forzati

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 Joe says

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 Se lo Stato ha il diritto di reclamare i frutti del mio lavoro

that implies that it really

has an entitlement ha un diritto

to my labor itself. al mio lavoro stesso.

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. che sta alla base della tesi libertaria dei diritti.

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 a cui sarete condotti

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, quel paziente appartiene a voi o alla comunità,

but we belong to ourselves.

And that's the same reason

that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves che è sbagliato fare leggi per proteggerci da noi stessi

or to tell us how to live,

to tell us what virtues

we should be governed by. da cui dovremmo essere governati.

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. anche per aiutare gli sfollati dell'uragano Katrina.

Ask them to give charity, Chiedete loro di fare beneficenza,

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 della settimana e scendere ad aiutare

the people

displaced by hurricane Katrina?

Morally it's the same.

So the stakes are very high. La posta in gioco è quindi molto alta.

So far we've heard some objections Finora abbiamo sentito alcune obiezioni

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 raccogliere le obiezioni

and we'll begin with them next time.

Anyone like to take up that point? Qualcuno vuole rispondere a questa domanda?

I feel like when you live in a society you give up that right. I mean technically if I Mi sembra che quando si vive in una società si rinunci a questo diritto. Voglio dire che tecnicamente se io

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, Voglio tornare agli argomenti a favore e contro la redistribuzione del reddito,

but before we do that,

just one word about

the minimal state.

Martin Friedman,

the libertarian economist,

he points out

that many of the functions

that we take for granted

as properly belonging to government, don't. come propriamente appartenenti al governo, non lo fanno.

They are paternalist. 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, per il bene della loro pensione. Se le persone vogliono correre il rischio,

or 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 sarebbe ancora in contrasto con lo Stato minimo

that Milton Friedman

argued for.

It's sometimes thought that A volte si pensa che

collective goods like police protection beni collettivi come la protezione della polizia

and fire protection

will inevitably create the problem of free riders unless they're publicly provided. creeranno inevitabilmente il problema dei free riders, a meno che non siano forniti pubblicamente.

But there are ways

to

prevent free riders. There are ways to

restrict even seemingly collective goods like fire protection. limitare anche beni apparentemente collettivi come la protezione antincendio.

I read an article

a while back about a private fire company, the Salem Fire Corporation in Arkansas. qualche tempo fa su una compagnia privata di pompieri, la Salem Fire Corporation in Arkansas.

You can sign up with the Salem Fire Corporation, È possibile iscriversi alla Salem Fire Corporation,

pay a yearly subscription fee, pagare un abbonamento annuale,

and if your house catches on fire, e se la casa prende fuoco,

they will come and put out the fire.

But they won't put out Ma non vogliono mettere fuori

everybody's fire. il fuoco di tutti.

They will only put it out

if it's a fire

in the home of a

subscriber or if it starts to spread abbonato o se inizia a diffondersi

and to threaten

the home of a subscriber.

The newspaper article

told the story of a homeowner who had subscribed ha raccontato la storia di un proprietario di casa che aveva abbonato

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 La Salem Fire Corporation si è presentata con i suoi camion.

and watched the house burn,

just making sure that it didn't spread. solo per assicurarsi che non si diffondesse.

The fire chief was asked,

well he wasn't exactly the fire chief, I guess he was the CEO. Beh, non era esattamente il capo dei vigili del fuoco, credo fosse l'amministratore delegato.

He was asked,

how can you stand by with fire equipment come si può stare in attesa con l'attrezzatura antincendio

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, ha cercato di rinnovare il suo abbonamento sul luogo dell'incendio,

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 Quindi, anche i beni pubblici

that we take for granted as being within the proper province of government, che diamo per scontato essere di competenza del governo,

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 libertarians' injunction against e l'ingiunzione dei libertari contro

paternalism.

But let's go back now to the

arguments about redistribution.

Now,

underlying

the libertarians' case

for the minimal state

is a worry about coercion. But what's wrong with coercion? è la preoccupazione per la coercizione. Ma cosa c'è di sbagliato nella coercizione?

The libertarian offers this answer.

To coerce someone, Costringere qualcuno,

to use some person for the sake of the general welfare utilizzare una persona per il benessere generale

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 libertarians' argument against redistribution

begins with this fundamental idea that we own ourselves.

Nozick says

that if

the society as a whole la società nel suo complesso

can go to Bill Gates

or go to Michael Jordan

and tax away a portion e tassare una parte

of their wealth,

what the society is really asserting ciò che la società sta realmente affermando

is a collective property right è un diritto di proprietà collettiva

in Bill Gates

or in Michael Jordan.

But that violates Ma questo viola

the fundamental principle

that we belong to ourselves. che apparteniamo a noi stessi.

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 i libertari tra noi

a chance to answer the objections la possibilità di rispondere alle obiezioni

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 who's been a

star on the web blog.

All right, Alex, come here, stand up, come.

We'll create a libertarian corner over here.

Who else? Other libertarians

who will join? chi si unirà?

What's your name?

John Sheffield.

Who else wants to join?

Other brave libertarians who are prepared

to take on, yes, da assumere, sì,

what's your name?

Julia Roto, Julia, come.

Join us over there. Unisciti a noi laggiù.

Now while the,

while Team Libertarian,

Julia, John, Alex,

while Team Libertarian is gathering over there, mentre il Team Libertarian si riunisce laggiù,

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. e qui, scendo, voglio parlare con il Team Libertarian qui.

So objection number one

is that

the poor need the money more. i poveri hanno più bisogno di denaro.

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 slave holder. non è un detentore di schiavi.

It's Congress. È il Congresso.

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. Quindi la tassazione per consenso dei governati non è forzata.

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. hanno un debito con la società per il loro successo che ripagano pagando le tasse.

Who wants to respond to the first one? The poor need the money more.

John.

John, what's the answer?

The poor need the money more.

That's quite obvious.

I could use the money. I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates gave me a million dollars. I soldi mi farebbero comodo. Di certo non mi dispiacerebbe se Bill Gates mi desse un milione di dollari.

I'd take a thousand. Io ne prenderei mille.

But at some point

you have to understand that the benefits of redistribution of wealth don't justify the

financial 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. 我们不认为这可以证明侵犯我们逻辑上推断的权利是正当的。

And so that also, I mean E quindi anche questo, voglio dire

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.

But it would still be wrong to coerce him

to meet the needs of the poor.

Are the two of you happy with that reply?

Anything to add?

Go ahead, Julie.

I think, Julia, yes. I think I could also add,

I guess I could add that

there's a difference between needing something and deserving something. I mean in an ideal society c'è una differenza tra avere bisogno di qualcosa e meritarsi qualcosa. Voglio dire che in una società ideale

everyone's needs be met, soddisfare le esigenze di tutti,

but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society. ma qui stiamo discutendo di cosa ci meritiamo come società.

And the poor don't deserve

don't deserve

the benefits that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help them. i benefici che deriverebbero dal tassare Michael Jordan per aiutarli.

Based on what we've come up with here I don't think Sulla base di ciò che è emerso qui, non credo che

you deserve something like that.

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.

I think again if you hit a certain level of

requirements to reach sustenance, you're going to need help. Like if you don't have per raggiungere il sostentamento, avrete bisogno di aiuto. Ad esempio, se non avete

food or a place to live, that's a case of need.

## So need is one thing and dessert is another. ## Quindi il bisogno è una cosa e il dessert è un'altra.

Who would like to reply?

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 i diritti di proprietà sono stabiliti e fatti rispettare dal governo, che è

a democratic government and we have representatives un governo democratico e abbiamo rappresentanti

who enforce those rights.

If you live in a society that operates under those rules,

then it should be up to the government allora dovrebbe essere compito del governo

to decide

how

those resources that come out through taxation are distributed because

it is through the consent of the government. 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 is pointing out, actually Raul is invoking Raul sottolinea, in realtà Raul invoca

point number two.

If the taxation is by

the consent of the governed,

it's not coerced, non è forzata,

it's legitimate.

Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United States. They get to vote for Bill Gates e Michael Jordan sono cittadini degli Stati Uniti. Possono votare per

Congress. They get to

vote

their policy convictions le loro convinzioni politiche

just like everybody else.

Who would like to take that one on? John? Chi vuole sfidare questo? John?

Basically what the libertarians are

objecting to in this case is the middle 80% deciding what the top 10% in questo caso è l'80% medio che decide cosa il 10% superiore

are doing for the bottom 10%. Wait, wait, wait, wait, John. stanno facendo per il 10% in meno. Aspetta, aspetta, aspetta, aspetta, John.

Majority. Don't you believe in democracy?

Well, right, but at some point... Don't you believe in, I mean you say 80%, 10% majority. Beh, giusto, ma a un certo punto... Non credete, voglio dire, che la maggioranza dell'80% e del 10%...

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. Resistere, resistere, resistere.

Democracy and mob rule aren't the same thing. Mob rule? Mob rule. Democrazia e mafia non sono la stessa cosa. Regime mafioso? Regola della mafia.

Exactly. But in an open society you have a recourse to address that through your Esattamente. Ma in una società aperta si ha la possibilità di affrontare la questione attraverso il proprio

representatives.

And if the majority of the consent of those who are governed E se la maggioranza del consenso di coloro che sono governati

doesn't agree with you,

then you know

you're choosing to live in a society

and you have to operate under what e si deve operare in base a ciò che

the majority of society concludes. Alright, Alex on democracy.

Democracy, what about that?

The fact that

I have won, you know, 500 thousandth of a vote for one representative in Congress Ho ottenuto, sapete, 500 millesimi di voto per un rappresentante al Congresso

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. una goccia nel secchio.

And, you know, well... You might lose the vote.

Exactly. And they might take... And I will. I mean I don't have Esattamente. E potrebbero prendere... E lo farò. Voglio dire, non ho

the decision right now of whether or not to pay taxes. If I don't I get locked in jail. la decisione di pagare o meno le tasse. Se non lo faccio vengo rinchiuso in prigione.

Or they tell me to get out of the country. But Alex, Alex, Oppure mi dicono di lasciare il Paese. Ma Alex, Alex,

let me make a small case for democracy.

See what you would say.

Why can't you... We live in a democratic society with freedom of speech. Perché non puoi... Viviamo in una società democratica con libertà di parola.

Why can't you take to the hustings, Perché non puoi andare alle elezioni?

persuade your fellow citizens convincere i vostri concittadini

that taxation is unjust

and try to get a majority?

I don't think the 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 propri diritti per non veder violata la propria autoproprietà.

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 in una forma di democrazia molto limitata, con una costituzione che limita fortemente la

the scope of what decisions l'ambito di quali decisioni

can be made democratically.

All right. So you're saying that democracy is fine

except where fundamental rights are involved.

I think you could win... If you're going on the hustings, let me add one element to the Penso che potresti vincere... Se si presenta alle elezioni, permettetemi di aggiungere un elemento al

argument you might make.

Maybe you could say, put aside the economic debates, Forse si potrebbe dire di mettere da parte i dibattiti economici,

taxation.

Suppose the individual right to religious liberty were at stake. Supponiamo che sia in gioco il diritto individuale alla libertà religiosa.

Then, Alex, you could say on the hustings, Allora, Alex, potresti dire, in occasione delle elezioni,

surely you would all agree

that we shouldn't put the right to individual liberty up to a vote? che non dovremmo mettere ai voti il diritto alla libertà individuale?

Yeah, that's exactly right.

And that's why we have constitutional amendments and why we make it so hard to amend our constitution. Ecco perché abbiamo emendamenti costituzionali e perché rendiamo così difficile emendare la nostra Costituzione.

So you would say

that the right to private property, che il diritto alla proprietà privata,

the right of Michael Jordan to keep all the money he makes, at least il diritto di Michael Jordan di tenere tutti i soldi che guadagna, almeno

to protect it from redistribution,

is the same kind of right

with the same kind of weight

as the right to freedom of speech, come il diritto alla libertà di parola,

the right to religious liberty, rights that should trump il diritto alla libertà religiosa, diritti che dovrebbero avere la meglio su

what the majority wants?

Exactly. The reason why we have a right to free speech is because we have a right

to own ourselves, to exercise our voice di possedere noi stessi, di esercitare la nostra voce

in any way that we choose.

So there we... Alright, who would like to respond to that argument about

democracy being... Okay, up there. Stand up.

I think comparing religion and economics, it's not the same thing. Penso che paragonare religione ed economia non sia la stessa cosa.

The reason why Bill Gates was able to make so much money is because we live in an economically

and socially stable e socialmente stabile

society, and if the government didn't provide for the poorest ten percent, as you say,

through taxation, then

we would need more money for police to prevent crime. avremmo bisogno di più soldi per la polizia per prevenire il crimine.

And so either way, there would be more taxes taken away to provide what you guys call

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

from

the right Alex asserts la destra Alex afferma

as a fundamental right

to private property

and to keep what I earn? e di tenere ciò che guadagno?

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. Mentre, ad esempio, il fatto che io pratichi la mia religione non influenzerà il prossimo.

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. This is... Let's take a quick poll of the three of you. Credo che lo sia. Questo è... Facciamo un rapido sondaggio tra voi tre.

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 Voglio dire, ci sono sicuramente altri modi per aggirare la cosa e

by justifying...

No, hang on, hang on. Before you laugh at me. No, aspetta, aspetta. Prima che tu rida di me.

That didn't work.

Before...

Before justifying the act Prima di giustificare l'atto

of stealing,

you have to look at

violating the right that we've already agreed exists, the right of self-possession violando il diritto che abbiamo già concordato esistere, il diritto di autoproduzione.

and the possession of,

I mean, your own things. We agree on property rights. We agree on stealing.

So property rights is not the issue.

So why is it wrong to steal even to feed your starving family? Sort of the original Allora perché è sbagliato rubare anche per sfamare la propria famiglia che muore di fame? Più o meno l'originale

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, per andare a questo gruppo di persone che ne hanno bisogno,

but you have an individual who's acting on their own behalf ma c'è un individuo che agisce per proprio conto

to kind of save themselves. I mean, I think you said they, per salvarsi. Voglio dire, credo che tu abbia detto "loro",

from the idea of self-possession,

they're also in charge of sono anche responsabili di

protecting themselves and keeping themselves alive.

So therefore, even from a libertarian standpoint, that might be okay. Quindi, anche da un punto di vista libertario, potrebbe andare bene.

Alright, that's good. That's good.

What about number three up here?

Isn't it the case

that the successful, the wealthy che chi ha successo, chi è ricco

owe a debt? They didn't do that all by themselves. They had to cooperate with other people.

That they

owe a debt to society, and that that's expressed in taxation. You want to take that on, Julia? hanno un debito nei confronti della società, che si esprime con la tassazione. Vuoi accettare questo, Julia?

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 providing 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. hanno risposto, in qualche modo hanno ottenuto la loro ricchezza.

So be concrete. In the case of Michael Jordan,

some,

I mean to illustrate your point,

there were people who helped you make the money, the teammates, c'erano persone che ti aiutavano a fare i soldi, i compagni di squadra,

the coach,

people who taught him how to play.

But you're saying that 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.

Alright, good. Who would anyone like to take up that point?

I think that there's a problem here

that we're assuming that a person has self-possession when they live in a society. che stiamo dando per scontato che una persona abbia la padronanza di sé quando vive in una società.

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 questioning, what's your name?

Victoria, are you questioning Victoria, stai mettendo in dubbio

the fundamental premise of self-possession?

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. non si possono ignorare le persone che ci circondano.

Alright, I want to quickly get the response D'accordo, voglio ottenere rapidamente la risposta

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 beh, forse si basa sul suggerimento di Victoria che non siamo padroni di noi stessi

because it says

that Bill Gates is wealthy,

that Michael Jordan makes a huge income. che Michael Jordan guadagna moltissimo.

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 meritare moralmente

all the money they make.

Who wants to reply to that?

You certainly could make the case that

it is not, their wealth is not appropriate to the goodness in their hearts, non lo è, la loro ricchezza non è adeguata alla bontà del loro cuore,

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. le loro partecipazioni, di solito in cambio della fornitura di qualche altro servizio.

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.

Thank you.

Toward the end of the discussion just now

Victoria challenged

the premise of this line of reasoning, this libertarian logic.

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, al più presto, al livello più modesto,

which is why a lot of people

disputed contestato

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 creare una società e una storia di giustizia

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 dicendo che il modo per porre fine a questa logica utilitaristica di usare le persone

is to resort to the intuitively powerful idea è quello di ricorrere all'idea intuitivamente potente di

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 e un resoconto dei diritti

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 contabilizzato

for the rise of private property per la nascita della proprietà privata

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 Locke

and examine his account ed esaminare il suo conto

of private property

and self-ownership.

And that's what we'll do next time.

Thank you.

Funding for this program is provided by

Additional funding provided by