For vols. 1-3 (2009-2011), cite articles as: Author, “Title,” Libertarian Papers [volume #], [article number] (year). Example: Jan Narveson, “Present Payments, Past Wrongs: Correcting Loose Talk about Nozick and Rectification,” Libertarian Papers 1, 1 (2009).
For vol. 4 (2012) onward, cite articles as: Author. Year. "Title." Libertarian Papers. Volume # (issue #): [page numbers]. Example: Michael F. Reber. 2012. "The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective." Libertarian Papers. 4 (1): 1-26.
41. “Why There are No Dilemmas in Widerquist’s ‘A Dilemma for Libertarians’”
by Lamont Rodgers
Abstract: Karl Widerquist has recently argued that libertarians face two dilemmas. The first dilemma arises because, contrary to what Widerquist takes libertarians to suggest, there is no conceptual link between robust property rights and the libertarian state. Private property rights can legitimately yield non-libertarian states. Libertarians must thus remain committed either to robust property rights or the libertarian state. I call this the “Conceptual Dilemma.”
The second dilemma is empirical in nature. Libertarians can try to undermine state property rights by showing that the means by which all present states came to have their property was unjust. However, doing so would presumably undermine almost all the property claims of private individuals. So the dilemma is that libertarians can undermine state property rights only by undermining individual property rights, on the one hand. On the other, libertarians can vindicate private property rights of individuals only by vindicating state property rights. I call this the “Empirical Dilemma.”
I attempt to diffuse both of these dilemmas here. I argue that the Conceptual Dilemma relies on a misunderstanding of the libertarian’s commitments. In particular, I show that libertarians need not think robust property rights can yield states more extensive than Nozick’s minimal state. I then argue that Widerquist ignores libertarian scholarship aimed at meeting the Empirical Dilemma. Many libertarians have attempted to demonstrate that there are legitimate private property rights which are illegitimately disregarded by current states. The upshot of this discussion is that there are no genuine dilemmas posed by Widerquist’s “A Dilemma for Libertarians.”
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[Mises Institute]](http://mises.org/Community/resized-image.ashx/__size/500x400/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.08.00.78/80x15.png)
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Widerquist sounds like a fairly unintelligent individual, sorry to say. Neither of these so-called dilemmas is at all sensical, much less genuinely coherent, to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of libertarian philosophy and politics. Beyond that, once one does have even such cursory knowledge, the appropriate answers become apparent. In the case of the latter “dilemma”, private property rights start with ones’ own body and extend out from there in a logical manner – and since the state itself, like other state-sanction artificial abstract entities such as corporations, has no body, it can therefore have no property rights. In the case of the former quandary, even if private property rights *can* legitimately yield non-libertarian states (which I do not agree with either – I believe that the existence of a state and private property rights are clearly incompatible) that does not mean that a libertarian ought advocate such. A libertarian should merely advocate libertarianism, which is founded upon the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is the highest and simplest philosophy of respecting the private property rights of others.
Thank you. I also am amazed at the prevalent idea that “the state” or a corporation is somebody. The United States apologizes for the internment of Japanese during World War II?! Or Exxon Corporation being “punished” for environmental disasters? What are they thinking?
I was pondering this “problem” earlier with regards to the notion that aboriginal property rights inevitably force libertarians to violate their own principles. But gladly someone has already done the hard thinking for me!
Nonetheless it’s shameless that many people have begun using Widerquist’s arguments in varied forms, usually by insisting that you must choose between acceptance of capitalism and rejection of colonialism.
I must thank both Widerquist and Rodgers attack and defend libertarianism.
Reading Rodgers’ reply to Widerquist’s paper was something equivalent to curing of weeks of constipation. Widerquist’s thought experiment at the moment when I read his paper seemed concrete and unquestionably reasonable. Thanks to Rodgers who pointed out conceptual mistakes, I did not have to do all the hard thinking on my own.