Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: Vic_Fox on September 22, 2009, 05:28:24 pm

Title: A place for people like me?
Post by: Vic_Fox on September 22, 2009, 05:28:24 pm
Dear Free State Project,

I have a few questions in regards to your movement:

Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

Are libertarian socialists encouraged to participate in the FSP?

Would your hypothetical "free state" be preferable for libertarian socialists like me (as opposed to, say, other states)?

Best wishes,
Vic Fox
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on September 22, 2009, 05:36:07 pm
American Libertarian an antonym of Libertarian socialism. But the best part about a Anarcho-Capitalist Society is that you can go off and start a commune with like minded people in a sort of Socialist Utopia without the government breathing down your neck. So if you want to make the American Federal Government Socialist or force socialism on the rest of us who dont agree with you and use the threat of force to steal peoples money, then no. I dont think the FSP is for you. But if you want to practice Socialism with a willing group of people free of the government, then yes, FSP is for you. Though in my experience i have yet to find someone who is the latter...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on September 22, 2009, 06:42:38 pm
Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

The scope of participation in the Free State Project is contained in the Statement of Intent (http://www.freestateproject.org/soi):

Quote
I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The statement of intent does not explicitly state who can and cannot own capital property. But it personally strikes me as contradictory that a person could be forbidden from owning capital property or that such property might be confiscated by others for productive use.

Are libertarian socialists encouraged to participate in the FSP?

Everyone determines their own level of involvement.


Would your hypothetical "free state" be preferable for libertarian socialists like me (as opposed to, say, other states)?

Only you can answer which state you find preferable.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: lobstah on September 22, 2009, 06:43:43 pm
as long as the "socialism" is voluntary, i for one am all for it!
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Dreepa on September 22, 2009, 06:50:43 pm
welcome Vic.

There are many 'left libertarians' in the FSP and in NH.

I agree with Lobstah and BDRoss...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Moebius Tripp on September 23, 2009, 12:19:32 am
I like zero-agression and defense.  I'm also interested in learning more about how/if Mondragon's paradigm would work iin a liberty framework.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: maxxoccupancy on September 23, 2009, 01:04:50 am
"Capitalism is what happens when governments leave things alone." --Ludwig von Mises

Live and let live.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: MK on September 25, 2009, 08:28:39 pm
If you want more freedom/liberty versus less, then you are welcome,all day and all night.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Vic_Fox on September 30, 2009, 10:09:12 pm
Quote from: madness!
American Libertarian an antonym of Libertarian socialism.
I am aware of this. Although, we were the first to use the term in the political sense, and we kind of want it back. :P

Quote from: madness!
But the best part about a Anarcho-Capitalist Society is that you can go off and start a commune with like minded people in a sort of Socialist Utopia without the government breathing down your neck.
That was sort of my line of thinking. Or rather, without the assistance of the state, proprietary enterprise would have a tougher time muscling out cooperatives and worker-managed enterprise. People who desire freedom should naturally gravitate toward the latter institutions if they truly desire emancipation in all aspects of life.

Quote from: madness!
So if you want to make the American Federal Government Socialist or force socialism on the rest of us who dont agree with you and use the threat of force to steal peoples money, then no. I dont think the FSP is for you. But if you want to practice Socialism with a willing group of people free of the government, then yes, FSP is for you. Though in my experience i have yet to find someone who is the latter...
I suppose that makes me the first then.

Quote from: B.D. Ross
Quote from: Vic_Fox
Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

The scope of participation in the Free State Project is contained in the Statement of Intent (http://www.freestateproject.org/soi):

Quote
I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The statement of intent does not explicitly state who can and cannot own capital property. But it personally strikes me as contradictory that a person could be forbidden from owning capital property or that such property might be confiscated by others for productive use.
It's the vast difference between the capitalist versus the libertarian socialist view of property rights that concerns me, and that seems to be what your personal concern revolves around.

Quote from: lobstah
as long as the "socialism" is voluntary, i for one am all for it!
I wouldn't have it any other way. (though I'm inclined to inquire as to why you chose to put socialism in quotes)

Quote from: maxxoccupancy
"Capitalism is what happens when governments leave things alone." --Ludwig von Mises
I disagree. Without the government, the last thing protecting capitalism is the ignorance of its victims.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: time4liberty on October 01, 2009, 03:05:01 am
Quote from: madness!
American Libertarian an antonym of Libertarian socialism.
I am aware of this. Although, we were the first to use the term in the political sense, and we kind of want it back. :P

Quote from: madness!
But the best part about a Anarcho-Capitalist Society is that you can go off and start a commune with like minded people in a sort of Socialist Utopia without the government breathing down your neck.
That was sort of my line of thinking. Or rather, without the assistance of the state, proprietary enterprise would have a tougher time muscling out cooperatives and worker-managed enterprise. People who desire freedom should naturally gravitate toward the latter institutions if they truly desire emancipation in all aspects of life.

Quote from: madness!
So if you want to make the American Federal Government Socialist or force socialism on the rest of us who dont agree with you and use the threat of force to steal peoples money, then no. I dont think the FSP is for you. But if you want to practice Socialism with a willing group of people free of the government, then yes, FSP is for you. Though in my experience i have yet to find someone who is the latter...
I suppose that makes me the first then.

Quote from: B.D. Ross
Quote from: Vic_Fox
Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

The scope of participation in the Free State Project is contained in the Statement of Intent (http://www.freestateproject.org/soi):

Quote
I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The statement of intent does not explicitly state who can and cannot own capital property. But it personally strikes me as contradictory that a person could be forbidden from owning capital property or that such property might be confiscated by others for productive use.
It's the vast difference between the capitalist versus the libertarian socialist view of property rights that concerns me, and that seems to be what your personal concern revolves around.

Quote from: lobstah
as long as the "socialism" is voluntary, i for one am all for it!
I wouldn't have it any other way. (though I'm inclined to inquire as to why you chose to put socialism in quotes)

Quote from: maxxoccupancy
"Capitalism is what happens when governments leave things alone." --Ludwig von Mises
I disagree. Without the government, the last thing protecting capitalism is the ignorance of its victims.

If your intent is to start a voluntary commune, cooperative, or worker managed business, which people can choose to join or leave, then I absolutely support you in your effort, and think you would definitely fit in.

In fact, I think all of these are a cool ideas, and might consider joining one for a period of time at some point. It's coercion, and the threat of aggressive violence that I oppose.

I am somewhat concerned on this point: Do you disbelieve in property rights, and if so, would you consider it morally acceptable to take a person's legitimately acquired property -- by which I mean something they have produced themselves or acquired by willing, voluntary trade -- by force?

I strongly agree that the government works in favor of the big corporatists, and routinely muscles out alternative organizations. Burdensome regulations custom made to eliminate competition and raise barriers to entry are a favorite tool.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 01, 2009, 03:11:29 am
What if the property was initially acquired by force, then voluntarily traded?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: time4liberty on October 01, 2009, 03:13:07 am
What if the property was initially acquired by force, then voluntarily traded?


I would say the person or people who initially used the force is/are on the hook for compensation to the victim, no matter how much the good is traded afterwards. Knowingly acquiring stolen property, however, while one is able to but chooses not to help effect justice, is absolutely unacceptable, and I might be convinced counts as assistance in the original crime.

The issue of receiving stolen property, which I think your question goes to, is not cut and dried, and is worth discussing. I do think knowledge and capability to effect justice are key factors in this issue.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: TEBON on October 01, 2009, 05:27:23 am
come here and bring your friends.  I wouldn't suggest going into the lions den unless you plan to get mauled.  Much like I wouldn't try and change people's minds about property.  I believe, as do many others, that I own myself.  If I am my own property then the things I acquire with my sweat and labor are also extensions of my life and I can do as I please with them and defend them.

But I'd be that sort of "capitalist" that would be quite friendly to Libertarian Socialists who use voluntary means to achieve their goals as a group.  Welcome to the FSP forum!
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 01, 2009, 11:56:26 am
welcome Vic.

There are many 'left libertarians' in the FSP and in NH.

I agree with Lobstah and BDRoss...

But the SOI as it relates to the term "property" is too broadly construed for many "left libertarians"...

Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 01, 2009, 12:16:20 pm
Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Where it says that "the maximum role of government is the protection of life", should we clarify that we don't mean slime mold?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 01, 2009, 03:27:45 pm
It's broadly worded precisely so that people can construe it as they like. If the SoI said "labor-based property," it would exclude most libertarians. If it said "both land- and labor-based property," it would exclude Georgists. As it is, I think it can include both right- and left-libertarians, within reason. (Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society. They are excluded from the movement.)
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Dreepa on October 01, 2009, 03:31:20 pm


Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.
law based
labor based


Aye Carumba  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???.... I just want to be left alone.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 01, 2009, 03:40:12 pm


Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Aye Carumba  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???.... I just want to be left alone.

I echo your sentiment. But some people would try to take your money anyway.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 01, 2009, 04:07:26 pm
Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Where it says that "the maximum role of government is the protection of life", should we clarify that we don't mean slime mold?

Slime mold might or might not be labor-based.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 01, 2009, 04:27:55 pm
Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Where it says that "the maximum role of government is the protection of life", should we clarify that we don't mean slime mold?

Slime mold might or might not be labor-based.

Not property. The protection of life.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 01, 2009, 04:29:53 pm
Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Where it says that "the maximum role of government is the protection of life", should we clarify that we don't mean slime mold?

Slime mold might or might not be labor-based.

Not property. The protection of life.

You would if you want slime moldians to join the FSP like left libertarians...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 01, 2009, 04:33:41 pm
You would if you want slime moldians to join the FSP like left libertarians...

Who said I want left libertarians? ;)

I think you're missing the point. The language of the SOI is intentionally very vague.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Dreepa on October 01, 2009, 06:27:19 pm


Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Aye Carumba  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???.... I just want to be left alone.

I echo your sentiment. But some people would try to take your money anyway.

i know  I just don't quibble or try to confuse myself or others about law based or labor based or lead based property.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 01, 2009, 09:43:27 pm
You would if you want slime moldians to join the FSP like left libertarians...

Who said I want left libertarians? ;)

I think you're missing the point. The language of the SOI is intentionally very vague.

Libertarian socialists are left-libs...

The SOI was changed to be more vague...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 01, 2009, 09:55:58 pm


Specifically, it needs to differentiate between law-based property and labor-based property plus possibly rules around occupancy and use.

Aye Carumba  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???.... I just want to be left alone.

I echo your sentiment. But some people would try to take your money anyway.

i know  I just don't quibble or try to confuse myself or others about law based or labor based or lead based property.

Well, I try to confuse myself as much as possible. That way nobody knows what I'm going to do next. /tinfoil hat
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: TEBON on October 02, 2009, 04:38:23 am
if they believe in living in a voluntary society then they're most definitely welcome.  If they want to come here and start voting for more government or supporting the government we do have in some instances, then no I will not welcome them but I will try and talk to them.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 02, 2009, 06:31:50 am
if they believe in living in a voluntary society then they're most definitely welcome.  If they want to come here and start voting for more government or supporting the government we do have in some instances, then no I will not welcome them but I will try and talk to them.

The guy is calling into question property theory...original appropriation did not occur voluntarily according to homesteading principle.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 02, 2009, 09:11:22 am
The problem is of course not the theory... just how to fix that which was broken so long ago.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Fr33dom on October 04, 2009, 09:18:44 am
B D Ross said, "Where it says that "the maximum role of government is the protection of life", should we clarify that we don't mean slime mold?"

What is "slime mold"?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Moebius Tripp on October 04, 2009, 09:35:38 am
What is "slime mold"?

An endangered species, no doubt.  ::)
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: aliendroid on October 04, 2009, 09:38:39 am
Dear Free State Project,

I have a few questions in regards to your movement:

Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

Are libertarian socialists encouraged to participate in the FSP?

Would your hypothetical "free state" be preferable for libertarian socialists like me (as opposed to, say, other states)?

Best wishes,
Vic Fox

There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.  That's like calling someone a freedom loving fascist.  Socialism is considered to be a crime by libertarians because it involves taking money from some people and giving to others, which certainly is not government leaving people alone.  I would say capitalism is the most important part of being a libertarian.  There is no such thing as a left leaning libertarian.  Libertarianism is the most right you can go on the political spectrum.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: TEBON on October 04, 2009, 10:05:47 am
you keep on thinkin' almost there
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Dreepa on October 04, 2009, 11:05:08 am
Dear Free State Project,

I have a few questions in regards to your movement:

Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

Are libertarian socialists encouraged to participate in the FSP?

Would your hypothetical "free state" be preferable for libertarian socialists like me (as opposed to, say, other states)?

Best wishes,
Vic Fox

There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.  That's like calling someone a freedom loving fascist.  Socialism is considered to be a crime by libertarians because it involves taking money from some people and giving to others, which certainly is not government leaving people alone.  I would say capitalism is the most important part of being a libertarian.  There is no such thing as a left leaning libertarian.  Libertarianism is the most right you can go on the political spectrum.

I know plenty of left leaning libertarians.  they are working hard here in NH.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 04, 2009, 03:42:47 pm
what is a left leaning libertarian? is if left of libertarian? because i thought that was just a plain ol' republican. Most libertarians are already pretty far left socially, any further and you would be a libertine. or is a left leaning libertarian a minarchist...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Fr33dom on October 04, 2009, 03:47:25 pm
Madness, are you confusing liberal with libertarian?  If so, they are complete opposite.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 04, 2009, 05:20:28 pm
really?! they are?! thanks from telling me! i must be on the wrong board!
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Jeff LaGrange on October 04, 2009, 06:33:28 pm
Dont worry I was on the internet looking for a free party hosted by the state to try and get some of my tax dollars back.  Man, did I get suckered.  Now I gotta move.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: time4liberty on October 04, 2009, 06:36:29 pm
There is no such thing as left or right libertarian IMO. Leftists believe in personal liberty, and economic tyranny, while rightists believe in economic liberty, and personal tyranny. Libertarians believe in both personal and economic liberty.

There might be people who call themselves libertarians who don't believe in property rights, although I think this is an essential component of liberty. Without property rights, nearly complete tyranny can be justified.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 04, 2009, 10:59:45 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism)

Left-libertarianism (sometimes synonymous with left-wing libertarianism and libertarian socialism[1][2]) is a term that has been used to describe several different libertarian political movements and theorists.

Left-libertarianism, as defended by contemporary theorists such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka, is a doctrine that has a strong commitment to personal liberty and has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.[3][4] Some left-libertarians of this type support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.[4] Social anarchists, including Murray Bookchin[5], anarcho-communists[6] such as Peter Kropotkin and anarcho-collectivists such as Mikhail Bakunin, are sometimes called left-libertarian.[7] Noam Chomsky also refers to himself as a left libertarian.[8] The term is sometimes used synonymously with libertarian socialism[9] or used in self-description by geoists who support individuals paying rent to the community for the use of land. Left libertarian parties, such as Green, share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state."[10]

In contrast, right libertarianism holds that there are no fair share constraints on use or appropriation.[11] Radical right libertarians hold that individuals have the power to appropriate unowned things by claiming them (usually by mixing their labor with them), and deny any other conditions or considerations are relevant. Thus they believe there is no justification for the state to redistribute resources to the needy or to overcome market failures.[12]

Differing from the above definition, some anarchists who support private ownership of resources and a free market call themselves left libertarian and also use a different definition for right libertarianism. These individuals include Roderick T. Long[13] and Samuel Edward Konkin III[14] Others, such as scholar David DeLeon, do not consider free-market private property anarchism to be on the left.[15]
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Mo250 on October 04, 2009, 11:18:22 pm
what a messed up bunch.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 04, 2009, 11:41:25 pm
what a messed up bunch.

How so?

Being a consistent libertarian to them means being against all forms of hierarchy/domination not just the state and therefore call into question property theory.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 05, 2009, 12:27:54 am
Dear Free State Project,

I have a few questions in regards to your movement:

Is the FSP capitalist, or is that an oversimplification?

Are libertarian socialists encouraged to participate in the FSP?

Would your hypothetical "free state" be preferable for libertarian socialists like me (as opposed to, say, other states)?

Best wishes,
Vic Fox

There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.  That's like calling someone a freedom loving fascist.  Socialism is considered to be a crime by libertarians because it involves taking money from some people and giving to others, which certainly is not government leaving people alone.  I would say capitalism is the most important part of being a libertarian.  There is no such thing as a left leaning libertarian.  Libertarianism is the most right you can go on the political spectrum.

Some would say that socialism is the far left, fascism is the far right and libertarianism is in the middle.

Those who voluntarily share resources are sometimes called socialist or communist (they may even live in communes, oh the horror). They may also be against violence and coercion making them libertarian.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: TEBON on October 05, 2009, 04:36:01 am
that's a good way to put it Keyser.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 05, 2009, 10:34:12 am
I don't remember socialism including the voluntary sharing of resources.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 05, 2009, 01:12:42 pm
Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553 (http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553)
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 05, 2009, 04:38:45 pm
90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids who flipped through the communist manifesto and think that socialism is the caped crusader to right all the wrongs in society. i dont think stateless socialism is what they want because it would require them to get there hands dirty and it wouldnt help to liberate the working class from a perceived tyranny. health care is another biggy. i doubt any one who spends a 100k on med school is going to want to join a commune and work his ass of in the fields for vegetables.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 05, 2009, 05:41:45 pm
Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553 (http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553)
You mean actually working. NO.
The fact that the Common Resource Regime is not explicitly the State, really makes little difference in the equation.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 06, 2009, 12:38:03 am
I don't remember socialism including the voluntary sharing of resources.

Unfortunately, most times it hasn't. Certainly not when imposed from the top down.



Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 06, 2009, 12:44:10 am
90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids

I'd bet good money that 90% of the people you've known in toto have been whinny middle class white kids.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

What's so funny about shared resources?

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

Nice attitude.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 06, 2009, 12:51:59 am
Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553 (http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553)
You mean actually working. NO.

I have.

Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Vic_Fox on October 06, 2009, 01:28:30 am
Quote from: ttie
I am somewhat concerned on this point: Do you disbelieve in property rights, and if so, would you consider it morally acceptable to take a person's legitimately acquired property -- by which I mean something they have produced themselves or acquired by willing, voluntary trade -- by force?
I believe that people have a right to the product of their labor, which is why I oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through profits, loans, investments, and rent, as these individuals are not laboring. I also argue for conditional titles to land and capital, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation. Thus, from my standpoint, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers should collectively own the capital they work with.

Quote from: Anton Lee
I believe, as do many others, that I own myself.  If I am my own property then the things I acquire with my sweat and labor are also extensions of my life and I can do as I please with them and defend them.
I agree completely, which is precisely why I oppose capitalism; the operatives in a factory or a farm create, by their labor and skill, all that is produced. Yet, instead of it belonging to them, the law gives them only their stipulated hire, and transfers what is produced to someone who has merely supplied the capital, almost always without contributing to the labor itself. Capitalism allows the buyers of labor (capitalists) to appropriate the product of other people's labor (wage workers) and denies workers the right to the fruit of their labor. Yet people's right to the fruits of their labor has always been the natural basis for private property appropriation. Thus capitalist production, far from being founded on private property, in fact denies the natural basis for private property appropriation.

Quote from: JasonPSorens
Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.
That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

Quote from: aliendroid
There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.
I beg to differ.

Quote from: aliendroid
Socialism is considered to be a crime by libertarians because it involves taking money from some people and giving to others, which certainly is not government leaving people alone.
You're describing state administered redistribution, yes? Socialism doesn't, in and of itself, necessitate what you're describing.

Quote from: ttie
There is no such thing as left or right libertarian IMO. Leftists believe in personal liberty, and economic tyranny, while rightists believe in economic liberty, and personal tyranny. Libertarians believe in both personal and economic liberty.
I think you're oversimplifying the political spectrum.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 06, 2009, 02:09:06 am
Quote from: aliendroid
There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.
I beg to differ.

As would I but from what you've written, I don't gather that you are one or, at the very least, we're using the same term to describe a vastly different belief system.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 06, 2009, 03:25:05 am
Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553 (http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553)
You mean actually working. NO.

I have.


I haven't. I know collectivism through voluntary cooperatives works well, but actual socialism... I've never seen work.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 06, 2009, 03:32:47 am
Actually Vic, capital enhances productivity.

For instance, I could dig a ditch without your backhoe... but the backhoe makes my labor more productive. So any amount of ditch that is produced beyond what I could produce with my labor within the same period of time is due to capital... not labor.

And it makes very little sense that I could purchase the backhoe off from you, but not rent it for only the time that I require it to complete my task. I could of course borrow it... but I find that borrowing requires me to amend my schedule to meet someone else's.
My time is valuable whether it is spent twittling my thumbs or digging the ditch... so the cost to capital is a factor of my choosing.
 
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Denis Goddard on October 06, 2009, 05:26:11 am
I believe that people have a right to the product of their labor, which is why I oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through profits, loans, investments, and rent
Wait a sec.

In my early '20s, I barely slept for 5 years of my life, studying my ass off and at the end earning a double major in Chemical Engineering and Computer Science from a very well-respected school (UW-Madison). I'll toot my own horn here and say that a lot of people could not have earned that kind of double-major no matter how hard they worked.

Those degrees helped me land a good-paying job, at which I worked 80+ hours per week for ~15 years until I had saved enough money to buy an investment property -- a duplex. For that property I owe the bank hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they will take from me (and destroy my credit rating) if for any reason I do not pay the mortgage every month.

My renters pay me. I provide them the ability to live in a house they otherwise could not afford, and the freedom to basically just walk away. I assume huge financial responsibility and risk.

Are you telling me I should not be able to take their rent checks?



I put some of my money into stocks. Being involved in the IT industry, I have had some insight about what kinds of businesses would provide real value for customers (Ebay) and which were never going to be viable businesses (Ehow). I bought stock businesses like the former, which gave them money they could use to grow their business to add more value to more peoples' lives.

That money is immediate purchasing power I lost -- but for which, I owned a tiny piece of the business, which I could sell later to someone else.

Are you telling me I should not be able to buy and sell ownership of a business?
That I should not be able to lend my money to an entrepreneur that I believe will bring valuable goods and services into the world?



Are you saying that it isn't "work" to run a rental property?
Are you saying it isn't "work" to research a company & understand its investment value?

Are you saying that if my renters and I agree to exchange money for housing, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?
Are you saying that if a business and I agree to exchange money for part-ownership of the business, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?
Or are you just saying you are bummed that people can make money in these ways, but that no such laws should be enacted?

My suspicion is that you haven't had much experience making money, except as an employee, in which your employer absorbed most of the risk inherent to being in business in the first place. That does not make you a bad person. It does mean that you should carefully examine your premises, and their implications. You are very close to Enlightenment :)
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 07:00:42 am
Quote
Are you saying that if my renters and I agree to exchange money for housing, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?
Are you saying that if a business and I agree to exchange money for part-ownership of the business, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?

Housing is capital and produced by labor. Land is not.

What aspect of the business's "profit" is due to privilege?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 06, 2009, 09:52:23 am
Quote from: JasonPSorens
Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.
That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

The question is whether it permits violence.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 10:49:05 am
90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids

I'd bet good money that 90% of the people you've known in toto have been whinny middle class white kids.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

What's so funny about shared resources?

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

Nice attitude.

I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood and did most of my schooling in a public school, with a few in private because me mom worked there and we got a discount. right now i am at college and both my parents are working two jobs to help me pay for it with out student loans. 

I guess nothing is funny about shared resources, what i was referring to was the cognitive dissonance a commune would have to contend with when they realize that they have to compete in a free market in order to stay alive (the few i have seen sell some sort of product to the outside world in order to make money, whether crops, or honey.)

Its not my attitude. most far lefties i know say "1% owns more capital than the lower 95% combined." theywant to take all of there money and use it to build schools and give everyone free healthcare.

ive seen a few history channel docs on communes in america, they main problem in them is that the hard working people are tired of people who just lounge around and do nothing. jealousy and spite are problems they have to content with over the inherent inefficiencies of a socialist system. so yes. laughable.   

Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 11:06:58 am
90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids

I'd bet good money that 90% of the people you've known in toto have been whinny middle class white kids.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

What's so funny about shared resources?

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

Nice attitude.

I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood and did most of my schooling in a public school, with a few in private because me mom worked there and we got a discount. right now i am at college and both my parents are working two jobs to help me pay for it with out student loans. 

I guess nothing is funny about shared resources, what i was referring to was the cognitive dissonance a commune would have to contend with when they realize that they have to compete in a free market in order to stay alive (the few i have seen sell some sort of product to the outside world in order to make money, whether crops, or honey.)

Its not my attitude. most far lefties i know say "1% owns more capital than the lower 95% combined." theywant to take all of there money and use it to build schools and give everyone free healthcare.

ive seen a few history channel docs on communes in america, they main problem in them is that the hard working people are tired of people who just lounge around and do nothing. jealousy and spite are problems they have to content with over the inherent inefficiencies of a socialist system. so yes. laughable.   

Left-libertarians only consider a "freed market" (there is no "free" market) one without privilege. If you remove all privilege our contention is that wage labor will become:

1. ad hoc
2. truly voluntary
3. rare

What will be the NATURAL result?

Some form of mutualism or non-state, market socialism where socialism means that "labor should be put in possession of its own". In other words - it's own capital and the just rewards that are due to labor-based property theory WITHOUT law-based property (usury as the result of privilege) or at least some obligation to those being excluded where exclusive use is necessary (i.e., land).

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm (http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm)

http://mutualist.org/ (http://mutualist.org/)

In political economy, "just due" is the return on each of the factors of production - land, labor, capital...

a. return on land being economic rent
b. return on labor being wages
c. return on capital being economic interest

You can see that "profit" is no where to be seen in the equation because "profit" is not possible to the extent it is today without SERIOUS rent-seeking via PRIVILEGE.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 11:13:07 am
Quote from: JasonPSorens
Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.
That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

The question is whether it permits violence.

No need for violence. The market itself will "socialize the means of production" when profits are driven out by ending ALL privilege. Then reciprocity, mutual aid, and solidarity will become more prominent ways of voluntarily organizing society.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on October 06, 2009, 11:30:20 am
Profits driven out by ending all privilege....wow.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 06, 2009, 12:19:18 pm
Mutualism and Socialism are not the same things.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 12:34:20 pm
Profits driven out by ending all privilege....wow.

The market will squeeze out profits by ending privilege.

Privilege/regulations etc. are used by business to raise the barriers to entry - thus protect profits.

Most lefties are under the delusion that Big Business hates Government regulations/privilege...nothing could be further from the truth.

The Republican "talk machine" is happy to continue to feed this delusion...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 01:06:01 pm
Mutualism and Socialism are not the same things.

Some people believe mutualism fits under the broader "non-state, market socialism" terminology...

Some people use the term libertarian socialist
Some people use the term agorist

Each one is a little different...

Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on October 06, 2009, 01:38:48 pm
To me it's a statist philosophy that is kissing cousins with socialism.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: TEBON on October 06, 2009, 01:48:40 pm
I thought agorism was for those who choose to operate their trades, business, services outside of the government accounting system.  I don't recall hearing that you had to be a lefty to want to choose to keep your money instead of sending it into the government.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 01:54:30 pm
Profits driven out by ending all privilege....wow.

The market will squeeze out profits by ending privilege.

how do you intend to end privilege with out force? there is no market reset button. there are rich families that have "privilege." will you strip their children of their money to keep the market "freed"? 
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 02:09:28 pm
Quote
how do you intend to end privilege with out force?

privi - private
lege - law
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 02:19:47 pm
To me it's a statist philosophy that is kissing cousins with socialism.

"Non-state, market socialism" is statism?

All "socialism" is the same? Only if you are interested in setting up strawman arguments...

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm (http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm)

written in 1888 by Benjamin Tucker, an individualist, libertarian, market socialist

excerpt:

The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” – namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.

This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American, – a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.

From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.

It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phraseology, or followed exactly this line of thought, but it indicates definitely enough the fundamental ground taken by all three, and their substantial thought up to the limit to which they went in common. And, lest I may be accused of stating the positions and arguments of these men incorrectly, it may be well to say in advance that I have viewed them broadly, and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken considerable liberty with their thought by rearranging it in an order, and often in a phraseology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without, in so doing, misrepresenting them in any essential particular.

It was at this point – the necessity of striking down monopoly – that came the parting of their ways. Here the road forked. They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism.

cont'd
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 02:20:19 pm
First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly.

Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx. The history of its growth and progress cannot be told here. In this country the parties that uphold it are known as the Socialistic Labor Party, which pretends to follow Karl Marx; the Nationalists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Edward Bellamy; and the Christian Socialists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Jesus Christ.

What other applications this principle of Authority, once adopted in the economic sphere, will develop is very evident. It means the absolute control by the majority of all individual conduct. The right of such control is already admitted by the State Socialists, though they maintain that, as a matter of fact, the individual would be allowed a much larger liberty than he now enjoys. But he would only be allowed it; he could not claim it as his own. There would be no foundation of society upon a guaranteed equality of the largest possible liberty. Such liberty as might exist would exist by sufferance and could be taken away at any moment. Constitutional guarantees would be of no avail. There would be but one article in the constitution of a State Socialistic country: “The right of the majority is absolute.”

The claim of the State Socialists, however, that this right would not be exercised in matters pertaining to the individual in the more intimate and private relations of his life is not borne out by the history of governments. It has ever been the tendency of power to add to itself, to enlarge its sphere, to encroach beyond the limits set for it; and where the habit of resisting such encroachment is not fostered, and the individual is not taught to be jealous of his rights, individuality gradually disappears and the government or State becomes the all-in-all. Control naturally accompanies responsibility. Under the system of State Socialism, therefore, which holds the community responsible for the health, wealth, and wisdom of the individual, it is evident that the community, through its majority expression, will insist more and more in prescribing the conditions of health, wealth, and wisdom, thus impairing and finally destroying individual independence and with it all sense of individual responsibility.

Whatever, then, the State Socialists may claim or disclaim, their system, if adopted, is doomed to end in a State religion, to the expense of which all must contribute and at the altar of which all must kneel; a State school of medicine, by whose practitioners the sick must invariably be treated; a State system of hygiene, prescribing what all must and must not eat, drink, wear, and do; a State code of morals, which will not content itself with punishing crime, but will prohibit what the majority decide to be vice; a State system of instruction, which will do away with all private schools, academies, and colleges; a State nursery, in which all children must be brought up in common at the public expense; and, finally, a State family, with an attempt at stirpiculture, or scientific breeding, in which no man and woman will be allowed to have children if the State prohibits them and no man and woman can refuse to have children if the State orders them. Thus will Authority achieve its acme and Monopoly be carried to its highest power.

Such is the ideal of the logical State Socialist, such the goal which lies at the end of the road that Karl Marx took. Let us now follow the fortunes of Warren and Proudhon, who took the other road, – the road of Liberty.

cont'd
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 02:20:33 pm
This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.

When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They saw in competition the great leveler of prices to the labor cost of production. In this they agreed with the political economists. They query then naturally presented itself why all prices do not fall to labor cost; where there is any room for incomes acquired otherwise than by labor; in a word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the present one-sidedness of competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated legislation that unlimited competition is allowed in supplying productive labor, thus keeping wages down to the starvation point, or as near it as practicable; that a great deal of competition is allowed in supplying distributive labor, or the labor of the mercantile classes, thus keeping, not the prices of goods, but the merchants’ actual profits on them down to a point somewhat approximating equitable wages for the merchants’ work; but that almost no competition at all is allowed in supplying capital, upon the aid of which both productive and distributive labor are dependent for their power of achievement, thus keeping the rate of interest on money and of house-rent and ground-rent at as high a point as the necessities of the people will bear.

On discovering this, Warren and Proudhon charged the political economists with being afraid of their own doctrine. The Manchester men were accused of being inconsistent. The believed in liberty to compete with the laborer in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury. Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital. But how to correct this inconsistency, how to serve this gander with this sauce, how to put capital at the service of business men and laborers at cost, or free of usury, – that was the problem.

Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring capital to be a different thing from product, and maintaining that it belonged to society and should be seized by society and employed for the benefit of all alike. Proudhon scoffed at this distinction between capital and product. He maintained that capital and product are not different kinds of wealth, but simply alternate conditions or functions of the same wealth; that all wealth undergoes an incessant transformation from capital into product and from product back into capital, the process repeating itself interminably; that capital and product are purely social terms; that what is product to one man immediately becomes capital to another, and vice versa; that if there were but one person in the world, all wealth would be to him at once capital and product; that the fruit of A’s toil is his product, which, when sold to B, becomes B’s capital (unless B is an unproductive consumer, in which case it is merely wasted wealth, outside the view of social economy); that a steam-engine is just as much product as a coat, and that a coat is just as much capital as a steam-engine; and that the same laws of equity govern the possession of the one that govern the possession of the other.

For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But, though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few. And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost, – that is, to nothing beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it. So they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule. Under this banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class monopolies that now prevail.

Of the latter they distinguished four of principal importance: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 02:21:19 pm
Quote
how do you intend to end privilege with out force?

privi - private
lege - law
a rough decryption.

privilege
1154 (recorded earlier in O.E., but as a Latin word), from O.Fr. privilege (12c.), from L. privilegium "law applying to one person," later "privilege," from privus "individual" + lex (gen. legis) "law."

but regardless, when i say privilege i dont mean a private law, or a law only one person has to follow, i mean an advantage given to a single person or group over another. as long as it doesnt come from the government, i dont really see what the problem is... a good reputation is a form of privilege.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 02:31:09 pm

Privilege/regulations etc. are used by business to raise the barriers to entry - thus protect profits.
how do you intend to remove privilege without regulation?! sounds very much like the sherman anti-trust act. which punishes efficient/innovative firms.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 02:37:06 pm
Quote
how do you intend to end privilege with out force?

privi - private
lege - law
a rough decryption.

privilege
1154 (recorded earlier in O.E., but as a Latin word), from O.Fr. privilege (12c.), from L. privilegium "law applying to one person," later "privilege," from privus "individual" + lex (gen. legis) "law."

but regardless, when i say privilege i dont mean a private law, or a law only one person has to follow, i mean an advantage given to a single person or group over another. as long as it doesnt come from the government, i dont really see what the problem is... a good reputation is a form of privilege.

Are you going to continue to set-up strawman arguments?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 02:53:52 pm
you didnt make an argument. you crudely defined a word. but i digress.

what do you define as privilege? Patents? owning land? passing capital to another generation of your family?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 03:07:06 pm
privi - private OR individual
leges - laws

Laws that affect only a subset of the whole or exempt you from laws.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 03:16:40 pm
how is that any different from a free market where there is no government regulation...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 03:39:59 pm
how is that any different from a free market where there is no government regulation...

Did you read Tucker's article?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 04:16:10 pm
nope. skimmed through it a bit. i was hoping you understood it enough to be able to enlighten me in fewer than 2500 words.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 05:12:54 pm
nope. skimmed through it a bit. i was hoping you understood it enough to be able to enlighten me in fewer than 2500 words.

You wanna be spoon fed?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on October 06, 2009, 05:30:30 pm
To me it's a statist philosophy that is kissing cousins with socialism.
"Non-state, market socialism" is statism?

You can call a cat a pig and it's still a cat. Everything I've heard of your mutualist/Georgist philosophy always comes back to needing a group of individuals to in some way rule or en"force" your philosphy, hence a state. So yes indeed your philosophy is a statist one.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 06:24:38 pm
nope. skimmed through it a bit. i was hoping you understood it enough to be able to enlighten me in fewer than 2500 words.

You wanna be spoon fed?
I know about social libertarianism. i used to eat up all the shit that chompsky and parenti used to write in high school. i am wondering if you know what it is you are talking about. all you have to argue was vaguely define what privilege means, post links to what other people have said, and copy and paste sections of an article you found on the internet.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 06:32:29 pm
nope. skimmed through it a bit. i was hoping you understood it enough to be able to enlighten me in fewer than 2500 words.

You wanna be spoon fed?
I know about social libertarianism. i used to eat up all the shit that chompsky and parenti used to write in high school. i am wondering if you know what it is you are talking about. all you have to argue was vaguely define what privilege means, post links to what other people have said, and copy and paste sections of an article you found on the internet.


I've got 1200+ posts here...been a member since 2004 and in NH since '96.

You've got 150+
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 06:35:40 pm
hahaha, you're pulling rank on me???!!! what does that have to do with anything!  do you think you having more posts than me makes you smarter?! what a preposterous thing to say! you clearly have no knowledge of socialist libertarian ideology.   
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: maxxoccupancy on October 06, 2009, 07:27:29 pm
What?! Two trollistas arguing on one forum?!  This is madness!

Damn, I was waiting for an opportunity to use that, heh heh.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 08:15:15 pm
hahaha, you're pulling rank on me???!!! what does that have to do with anything!  do you think you having more posts than me makes you smarter?! what a preposterous thing to say! you clearly have no knowledge of socialist libertarian ideology.   

"Chompsky"

RU serious?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Jeff LaGrange on October 06, 2009, 08:21:47 pm
This isn't a debate it is foreplay.  And I'm gonna watch 'cause I'm a perverse and a voyer.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 06, 2009, 08:48:25 pm
What?! Two trollistas arguing on one forum?!  This is madness!

Dammit, I've been waiting to proclaim that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgk56xT4Mk).
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 09:03:19 pm
This isn't a debate it is foreplay.  And I'm gonna watch 'cause I'm a perverse and a voyer.

Isn't it "voyeur"?

Geez people around here are just dumb.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 06, 2009, 09:12:24 pm
I've got 1200+ posts here...been a member since 2004 and in NH since '96.

You've got 150+

If you've actually got the idea that playing that card means something, out of fairness, you should probably also diclose that... ... eh, 90% of those posts are about a single topic.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 06, 2009, 09:15:59 pm
I've got 1200+ posts here...been a member since 2004 and in NH since '96.

You've got 150+

If you've actually got the idea that playing that card means something, out of fairness, you should probably also diclose that... ... eh, 90% of those posts are about a single topic.

left-libertarianism and a critique of privilege...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Jeff LaGrange on October 06, 2009, 09:19:33 pm
This isn't a debate it is foreplay.  And I'm gonna watch 'cause I'm a perverse and a voyer.

Isn't it "voyeur"?

Geez people around here are just dumb.

You could have got me on grammer with "a pervert" instead of a perverse, but you try and hammer me for mistyping and leaving out the letter U. Who is the dumb one here?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 09:46:48 pm
intercourse is me yelling at my computer.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Jeff LaGrange on October 06, 2009, 09:49:01 pm
intercourse is me yelling at my computer.
Is your computer wearing clothes? mmmm
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 06, 2009, 09:51:23 pm
thats really not my cup of tea.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Dreepa on October 06, 2009, 10:55:57 pm
I love how some commie (yup I said it.. he doesn't want denis to make ANY money) posts here.. is welcome and then.....it is turned into another debate topic on Georgie ism.   ::)

Madness and poorcollegekid.....his posts are lots and lot and lots and lots of georgie ism.  But he is a nice guy in person.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Moebius Tripp on October 07, 2009, 01:25:08 am
"Its a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word."  Sam Clemens.

"Only nit-picky twits knock others for not using the same grammar/spelling as themselves."  Matt Coates (me)

especially when the the intent and meaning is clear to the nit-picker.

Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 07, 2009, 01:51:27 am
The problem is that when stored-labor is put to use... it is no longer 'stored'. Thus it derives value based on the productivity increase measured against the lack of its presence.

Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Bazil on October 07, 2009, 11:23:49 pm
really?! they are?! thanks from telling me! i must be on the wrong board!

I'd like to point out an spectrum I made out which defines pretty well where political ideologies land. You notice that Socialist Libertarians and Republicans do indeed land on the other side of the spectrum.
(http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18899.0;attach=664)
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 08, 2009, 12:05:58 am
spiffy. i dont think democrats are thar close to totalitarianism though...
I think it goes....
anarcho-socailism                            high freedom                              Libertarian


                                                                    Republican

Hight equality               democrat                                                  Low equality





Communist                                       Low freedom                        Fascist

rough, and you technically communism should be on a curve toward lower freedom and lower equality.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: madness! on October 08, 2009, 12:18:25 am
actually now i feel like a jackass. there are a 1001 ways to skin a cat. i guess its just the way i learned it so i figured it must be right.

and i kinda closed my eyes and threw darts for democrat/republican.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: TEBON on October 08, 2009, 01:05:30 am
I like that chart. 
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: time4liberty on October 08, 2009, 01:57:50 am
Quote from: ttie
I am somewhat concerned on this point: Do you disbelieve in property rights, and if so, would you consider it morally acceptable to take a person's legitimately acquired property -- by which I mean something they have produced themselves or acquired by willing, voluntary trade -- by force?
I believe that people have a right to the product of their labor, which is why I oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through profits, loans, investments, and rent, as these individuals are not laboring. I also argue for conditional titles to land and capital, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation. Thus, from my standpoint, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers should collectively own the capital they work with.

Quote from: Anton Lee
I believe, as do many others, that I own myself.  If I am my own property then the things I acquire with my sweat and labor are also extensions of my life and I can do as I please with them and defend them.
I agree completely, which is precisely why I oppose capitalism; the operatives in a factory or a farm create, by their labor and skill, all that is produced. Yet, instead of it belonging to them, the law gives them only their stipulated hire, and transfers what is produced to someone who has merely supplied the capital, almost always without contributing to the labor itself. Capitalism allows the buyers of labor (capitalists) to appropriate the product of other people's labor (wage workers) and denies workers the right to the fruit of their labor. Yet people's right to the fruits of their labor has always been the natural basis for private property appropriation. Thus capitalist production, far from being founded on private property, in fact denies the natural basis for private property appropriation.

Quote from: JasonPSorens
Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.
That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

Quote from: aliendroid
There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.
I beg to differ.

Quote from: aliendroid
Socialism is considered to be a crime by libertarians because it involves taking money from some people and giving to others, which certainly is not government leaving people alone.
You're describing state administered redistribution, yes? Socialism doesn't, in and of itself, necessitate what you're describing.

Quote from: ttie
There is no such thing as left or right libertarian IMO. Leftists believe in personal liberty, and economic tyranny, while rightists believe in economic liberty, and personal tyranny. Libertarians believe in both personal and economic liberty.
I think you're oversimplifying the political spectrum.


Tools are not free. I may work hard to produce a tool, so that someone else can use that tool to become more productive. Thus, that other person may use my tool, and we may spit the proceeds. The workers you describe have not themselves produced all of those goods, because they did not produce the farm they are using to be productive, which also required a good deal of labor.

If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it. They have no obligation to personally use it in order to continue to own it -- they can rent it out to someone else that can put it to better use. This is absolutely legitimate. It is silly to imagine that if someone creates a good or service, they must personally utilize it all the time in order for it to be theirs.

What keeps people in poverty is not property ownership, but government manipulation/regulation/taxation, etc.

If you feel you have the right to go steal someone's property that they have legitimately acquired just because they're not currently using it, or they've rented it out, then I do think your views do not mesh with liberty. If you can respect people's property, but work to create worker owned alternative businesses, and convince people to voluntarily choose more commune-like solutions, then I think you would fit in very well.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 08, 2009, 06:16:15 am
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Bazil on October 08, 2009, 06:42:16 am
spiffy. i dont think democrats are thar close to totalitarianism though...
I think it goes....
anarcho-socailism                            high freedom                              Libertarian


                                                                    Republican

Hight equality               democrat                                                  Low equality





Communist                                       Low freedom                        Fascist

rough, and you technically communism should be on a curve toward lower freedom and lower equality.

It all depends on what you use to define your spectrum.  I used Individualism and regulationism.  The names are in the general areas (8ths) with which the groups land.  For the most part the groups depicted there actually land nearer to the middle of the chart. I put groups like Totalitarianism and Libertarianism at the extreme corners to show that the closer you get to the corner the more like that you are
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: time4liberty on October 08, 2009, 04:24:49 pm
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...

All things man creates are made from something that preexisted the labor. But once man mixes his labor with nature, and improves it, that part of nature becomes his property. If I make a sculpture out of clay, it is mine, and it would be wrong for you to steal it, despite the fact that the clay pre-existed my labor.

Now, the question of what constitutes improvement, or legitimate ownership, is one worth of discussion, but if something is owned, it is owned. You cannot change your mind about its ownership because you don't like what the owner has chosen to do with the property.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 08, 2009, 04:45:31 pm
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...

All things man creates are made from something that preexisted the labor. But once man mixes his labor with nature, and improves it, that part of nature becomes his property. If I make a sculpture out of clay, it is mine, and it would be wrong for you to steal it, despite the fact that the clay pre-existed my labor.

Now, the question of what constitutes improvement, or legitimate ownership, is one worth of discussion, but if something is owned, it is owned. You cannot change your mind about its ownership because you don't like what the owner has chosen to do with the property.

How about a 3D location in space - with one dimension being the dry surface of the earth?

How about if the "thing" is abandoned?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: time4liberty on October 08, 2009, 04:59:29 pm
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...

All things man creates are made from something that preexisted the labor. But once man mixes his labor with nature, and improves it, that part of nature becomes his property. If I make a sculpture out of clay, it is mine, and it would be wrong for you to steal it, despite the fact that the clay pre-existed my labor.

Now, the question of what constitutes improvement, or legitimate ownership, is one worth of discussion, but if something is owned, it is owned. You cannot change your mind about its ownership because you don't like what the owner has chosen to do with the property.

How about a 3D location in space - with one dimension being the dry surface of the earth?

How about if the "thing" is abandoned?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 3D location. I think if a new continent is discovered, for example, and a person homesteads a reasonably sized piece of land on that continent, they could also be said to own some airspace above that land. I don't have a right to fly a helicopter 10 feet above a person's house without their permission.

If a property has an owner, but that owner is not using the property, to have the right to use that property, one would still need to get permission from the owner.

That said, I don't think laws should be enforced without plaintiffs. So, if you're quite sure they're not interested in the property, you're not damaging the property, and you're willing to risk losing access to the property if the owner objects, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. For example, if there is an apparently abandoned lot next to you, I don't have a problem with you planting a small garden on it -- but you have to recognize that if the owner comes back you may loose it. Also, if you damage their property, you're going to be expected to make restitution.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 08, 2009, 05:46:33 pm
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...

All things man creates are made from something that preexisted the labor. But once man mixes his labor with nature, and improves it, that part of nature becomes his property. If I make a sculpture out of clay, it is mine, and it would be wrong for you to steal it, despite the fact that the clay pre-existed my labor.

If you continue down this line of reasoning (as with land), you reach a silly situation. The sculpture is yours. The clay is not. By making the sculpture, you are depriving everyone else of the clay's use. Pay me taxes for owning the sculpture, or I will hurt you.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 08, 2009, 06:59:10 pm
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...

All things man creates are made from something that preexisted the labor. But once man mixes his labor with nature, and improves it, that part of nature becomes his property. If I make a sculpture out of clay, it is mine, and it would be wrong for you to steal it, despite the fact that the clay pre-existed my labor.

If you continue down this line of reasoning (as with land), you reach a silly situation. The sculpture is yours. The clay is not. By making the sculpture, you are depriving everyone else of the clay's use. Pay me taxes for owning the sculpture, or I will hurt you.

Does the clay have any economic value in situ prior to the application of labor?
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: rossby on October 08, 2009, 07:01:11 pm
Quote
If a person creates something, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it.

Land pre-exist human labor...

All things man creates are made from something that preexisted the labor. But once man mixes his labor with nature, and improves it, that part of nature becomes his property. If I make a sculpture out of clay, it is mine, and it would be wrong for you to steal it, despite the fact that the clay pre-existed my labor.

If you continue down this line of reasoning (as with land), you reach a silly situation. The sculpture is yours. The clay is not. By making the sculpture, you are depriving everyone else of the clay's use. Pay me taxes for owning the sculpture, or I will hurt you.

Does the clay have any economic value in situ prior to the application of labor?

Loamy soil is rather valuable.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 09, 2009, 01:58:19 pm
Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553 (http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553)
You mean actually working. NO.

I have.


I haven't. I know collectivism through voluntary cooperatives works well, but actual socialism... I've never seen work.

Not sure about the distinction you're trying to make between voluntary cooperatives and non-state socialism but I'm pretty sure we're agreeing.
Title: Re: A place for people like me?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 09, 2009, 02:03:46 pm
the inherent inefficiencies of a socialist system   

I have had some personal experience with hippie inefficiencies. Not fun.