NationStates Jolt Archive

Just about anyone with any familiarity in political science knows Max Weber's definition of a State: a single entity with the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force in a particular territory.

This definition, i think, is near perfect. It succinctly captures the essence of the power of the State, that is, its existence as what legitimizes the initiation and use of force by individuals within its territory.

Now, if we turn to private property rights, as interpreted by right-wing libertarians, as being both inviolable and the source of liberty in itself. Traditionally, this is interpreted as a closely knit bundle of rights.

1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

So, let's focus on the 1st and 4th rights in this enumeration. Private property rights give the owner of property the right to exclude others from their property, and the right to exclusively control their domain. Owned private property can be considered to be a sort of "territory"; an area staked out by an owner where his/her control resides, terminating theoretically at its borders. In order to enforce these rights, the private property owner is given the right to exclude others from his property, and may use any force necessary to do so.

In order to maintain control of his property, an owner may use force to exclude others from his property, or force those who cannot/will not leave to obey his dictates. So, succinctly, private property rights grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to private property, and thus makes private property a State within itself.

If we accept the thesis that private property exists without what will henceforth be labeled the OverState creating its existence and defining it as an institution, then these smaller States defined by private property are merely vassal states of a much larger OverState. Anyone versed in international politics knows that a vassal state does not cease to be a state.

So the question now is, if those who call themselves free market libertarians continue to argue that the (Over)State is antithetical to liberty, then why do they continue to support the same concept as the OverState in the form of private property? The two institutions are identical in concept, and are both diametrically opposed to real individual liberty, yet so many rally to the argument that the State (private property) is indeed the definition of liberty.

This of course, is of little importance to oppressed and exploited peoples everywhere. Oppression by any other name, no matter what institution performs it or for what reason they do so, is still oppression.

"Now, if we turn to private property rights, as interpreted by right-wing libertarians"---Trotskylvania

Wait a minute....right-wing libertarians? And then are we going to ask our left-wing anarchists, right-wing communists, and left-wing fascists?

If they are libertarians, then they are not right-wing. If they are right-wing, then they are not libertarians.

If they are libertarians, then they are not right-wing. If they are right-wing, then they are not libertarians.

Thats not true.

The state protects my capital and property from anarchist thieves.

Glory be!

Yes, Hydesland, it is true. The left and right wings lie on one axis of the political spectrum. Libertarians are on the other axis and fall within the moderate region of the other.

Just about anyone with any familiarity in political science knows Max Weber's definition of a State: a single entity with the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force in a particular territory.

This definition, i think, is near perfect. It succinctly captures the essence of the power of the State, that is, its existence as what legitimizes the initiation and use of force by individuals within its territory.

Now, if we turn to private property rights, as interpreted by right-wing libertarians, as being both inviolable and the source of liberty in itself. Traditionally, this is interpreted as a closely knit bundle of rights.

1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

So, let's focus on the 1st and 4th rights in this enumeration. Private property rights give the owner of property the right to exclude others from their property, and the right to exclusively control their domain. Owned private property can be considered to be a sort of "territory"; an area staked out by an owner where his/her control resides, terminating theoretically at its borders. In order to enforce these rights, the private property owner is given the right to exclude others from his property, and may use any force necessary to do so.

In order to maintain control of his property, an owner may use force to exclude others from his property, or force those who cannot/will not leave to obey his dictates. So, succinctly, private property rights grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to private property, and thus makes private property a State within itself.

If we accept the thesis that private property exists without what will henceforth be labeled the OverState creating its existence and defining it as an institution, then these smaller States defined by private property are merely vassal states of a much larger OverState. Anyone versed in international politics knows that a vassal state does not cease to be a state.

So the question now is, if those who call themselves free market libertarians continue to argue that the (Over)State is antithetical to liberty, then why do they continue to support the same concept as the OverState in the form of private property? The two institutions are identical in concept, and are both diametrically opposed to real individual liberty, yet so many rally to the argument that the State (private property) is indeed the definition of liberty.

This of course, is of little importance to oppressed and exploited peoples everywhere. Oppression by any other name, no matter what institution performs it or for what reason they do so, is still oppression.

I would note that the State, at least in every form of it that I'm familiar with, is an inherently social entity composed of many individuals. (I suspect Weber would agree that the State is inherently social, given his field of study.) Basically, one property owner can't be a State, though a property collectively owned by many individuals could. A corporation would certainly fit that definition of a State.

Yes, Hydesland, it is true. The left and right wings lie on one axis of the political spectrum. Libertarians are on the other axis and fall within the moderate region of the other.

There is not one version of libertarianism.

Never said there was....but libertarianism all falls withing a range of beliefs. If you don't hold most of those beliefs, then you are not a libertarian, you would be something else. Just like you cannot claim to be a democrat and only actually hold a few of those beliefs.

This is difficult to argue if you don't close the parameters a little. There are many states in the world that claim private property but do not fit into the example that you have created- yet still accurately have private property rights.

I hold that your definition of the state of "private property" does not exist anywhere in the world. The biggest problem with your argument was the phrase "any force necessary". That statement is rubbish and you know it.

Never said there was....but libertarianism all falls withing a range of beliefs. If you don't hold most of those beliefs, then you are not a libertarian, you would be something else. Just like you cannot claim to be a democrat and only actually hold a few of those beliefs.

Who decides what constitutes an acceptable range of beliefs to qualify for definition? Particularly when you take into consideration how much parties change over time. Being a member of such is more a measure of ideology and philosophy, not numerical counting of each individual belief you hold. One can be libertarian and still support Universal Healthcare for example.

Firstly, where the state maintains a monopoly on violence, the private individual can possess no legitimate claim to violence (except that which abides and furthers the rule of law set by state violence). There cannot be a monopoly held by the individual and the state in unison, monopolies are mutually exclusive by definition.

This is why your idea of the OverState falls apart: libertarians call for a monopoly on violence placed in the hands of the individual to protect his interests, his claims, namely his self and his property. You are on the right track, though, in proclaiming the the similarity between the property owner and the state, as libertarians wish to create in all individuals a sovereign state. And like the idea of monopolies, there can be no sovereign state that exists under the rule of another state, the OverState as you call it.

The libertarian (ok, maybe just my type of libertarian) does not use an OverState to create a system of vassals, it directly confronts the idea of a sovereign state with the idea of the sovereign individual, and the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

To answer your question directly, libertarians do not support the same concept as the "OverState" in private property, they support the idea of sovereignty, which while easily identified in the nature of the State, is also inseparable from the nature of the free individual.

"Who decides what constitutes an acceptable range of beliefs to qualify for definition? Particularly when you take into consideration how much parties change over time. Being a member of such is more a measure of ideology and philosophy, not numerical counting of each individual belief you hold. One can be libertarian and still support Universal Healthcare for example."---Relyc

Nobody has to decide something. Like being a Catholic....it isn't someone else that determines if you are Catholic, it is your own beliefs that determine whether you are Catholic or not. I am talking about belief systems, not political parties...so using the terms democrat and republican instead of the ideologies that they currently support was probably poor wording. The difference is that you can join the party without sharing their beliefs, but you cannot hold mutually opposing beliefs at the same time.

The OP is actually right on this one

I found a coin on my desk, the first one I saw, and on one side was this guy:
http://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/images/Washington-Quarter-Obv.jpg

His name is George Washington and he is... gasp... a CAPITAList...

on the other side is this:

http://www.theus50.com/images/state-quarters/virginia-quarter.jpg

And... get this... Virginia is a STATE.

And those two sides...

Are two sides of the same coin!

The difference is that you can join the party without sharing their beliefs, but you cannot hold mutually opposing beliefs at the same time.

Again I ask, what makes some beliefs "opposing" what constitutes "hypocrisy" in an ideology? You cant tell for certain why someone believes something, so who are you to judge whether beliefs that seem contradictory to you?

If you are simply arguing 'academic definition' then I would say you will never find someone who define with perfect accuracy what an ideology constitutes. I have no idea what you mean otherwise.

As I said before, Is a libertarian hypocritical for supporting Universal healthcare? or any social programs at all? Can you actually measure ideology in degrees?

"Again I ask, what makes some beliefs "opposing" what constitutes "hypocrisy" in an ideology? You cant tell for certain why someone believes something, so who are you to judge whether beliefs that seem contradictory to you?

If you are simply arguing 'academic definition' then I would say you will never find someone who define with perfect accuracy what an ideology constitutes. I have no idea what you mean otherwise.

As I said before, Is a libertarian hypocritical for supporting Universal healthcare? or any social programs at all? Can you actually measure ideology in degrees?"---Relyc

What makes some beliefs opposing? You mean you honestly don't understand how the belief that abortion is a woman's right is opposing the belief that abortion is evil? You don't understand how the belief that firearm ownership should be mandatory opposes the belief that there should be a ban on privately owned firearms?

It does not matter why someone believes something. Two Muslims that believe for different reasons are still just as much Muslims.

A libertarian that believes universal healthcare is a horrible idea WOULD be hypocritical to support it. A person that does not hold that particular libertarian belief would not be hypocritical to support it

Yes, Hydesland, it is true. The left and right wings lie on one axis of the political spectrum. Libertarians are on the other axis and fall within the moderate region of the other.

It seems to me that you need a massive dose of the good ol' Political Compass. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)

Uh, UNITIHU, apparently you do not seem to have noticed the fact that while not quite the diagram/spectrum i was describing, the site you have linked to agrees with what i said. The libertarian ideas fall within the moderate position on the axis that is displayed by that graphic as left and right, and is off it on a seperate axis

"Again I ask, what makes some beliefs "opposing" what constitutes "hypocrisy" in an ideology? You cant tell for certain why someone believes something, so who are you to judge whether beliefs that seem contradictory to you?

If you are simply arguing 'academic definition' then I would say you will never find someone who define with perfect accuracy what an ideology constitutes. I have no idea what you mean otherwise.

As I said before, Is a libertarian hypocritical for supporting Universal healthcare? or any social programs at all? Can you actually measure ideology in degrees?"---Relyc

[quote]What makes some beliefs opposing? You mean you honestly don't understand how the belief that abortion is a woman's right is opposing the belief that abortion is evil? You don't understand how the belief that firearm ownership should be mandatory opposes the belief that there should be a ban on privately owned firearms?

You misunderstand me. You were the one that claimed that a libertarian can't be right-wing, though I suppose you could just be new to the many, many definitions that make the rounds around here.

What I'm questioning is this, and you may not be guilty of it: The belief that one view can/should cancel out another entirely separate view. For example, meaning that holding one ideology should make you avoid another.

I see it as a symptom of people who are too dedicated to their parties and too far removed from their own beliefs. The popular 2000 election statement "A vote for a third party is a vote for bush" is another sign of this phenomenon.

A libertarian that believes universal healthcare is a horrible idea WOULD be hypocritical to support it. A person that does not hold that particular libertarian belief would not be hypocritical to support it

Oh here we go again. The bolded statement is my original point of contention. Exactly how many beliefs must you hold to be 'allowed' to identify yourself as such.

"The belief that one view can/should cancel out another entirely separate view. For example, meaning that holding one ideology should make you avoid another.

I see it as a symptom of people who are too dedicated to their parties and too far removed from their own beliefs. The popular 2000 election statement "A vote for a third party is a vote for bush" is another sign of this phenomenon."---Relyc

That's the problem....it's not that one view can or should cancel out another entirely separate views. I never said anything about that. It is about two completely differing views on the same subject. It isn't that you SHOULDN'T hold two opposing views, it is that it is impossible to honestly hold to opposing views. You cannot honestly support mandatory citizen firearm ownership and a ban against the same.

Your statement about political parties has nothing to do with it. as i have said, you can be a member of a political party, and not believe anything that it does.

"Oh here we go again. The bolded statement is my original point of contention. Exactly how many beliefs must you hold to be 'allowed' to identify yourself as such."---Relyc

You obviously didn't catch my other post. I never said you aren't allowed to identify yourself as something, i said you can either be or not be something. Anyone can identify themselves as a Christian. But no matter what you say, or what anyone else says, if you do not believe that Jesus is the coming of God on Earth, then you cannot BE a Christian.

Like your universal healthcare example. It is an opposing viewpoint to that of libertarianism. You can be a member of the Libertarian party, but you cannot honestly believe in libertarianism. I'm not saying that is bad, anymore than i am saying that a Hindu is bad for not being Christian. I am only commenting on the actual state of belief.

Uh, UNITIHU, apparently you do not seem to have noticed the fact that while not quite the diagram/spectrum i was describing, the site you have linked to agrees with what i said. The libertarian ideas fall within the moderate position on the axis that is displayed by that graphic as left and right, and is off it on a seperate axis
No, the Libertarian position has no relevance on the x axis of that chart. It's. Low scores on the y-axis are libertarian, regardless of the corresponding position on the x-axis.

Just about anyone with any familiarity in political science knows Max Weber's definition of a State: a single entity with the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force in a particular territory.

This definition, i think, is near perfect. It succinctly captures the essence of the power of the State, that is, its existence as what legitimizes the initiation and use of force by individuals within its territory.

Now, if we turn to private property rights, as interpreted by right-wing libertarians, as being both inviolable and the source of liberty in itself. Traditionally, this is interpreted as a closely knit bundle of rights.

1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

So, let's focus on the 1st and 4th rights in this enumeration. Private property rights give the owner of property the right to exclude others from their property, and the right to exclusively control their domain. Owned private property can be considered to be a sort of "territory"; an area staked out by an owner where his/her control resides, terminating theoretically at its borders. In order to enforce these rights, the private property owner is given the right to exclude others from his property, and may use any force necessary to do so.

In order to maintain control of his property, an owner may use force to exclude others from his property, or force those who cannot/will not leave to obey his dictates. So, succinctly, private property rights grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to private property, and thus makes private property a State within itself.

If we accept the thesis that private property exists without what will henceforth be labeled the OverState creating its existence and defining it as an institution, then these smaller States defined by private property are merely vassal states of a much larger OverState. Anyone versed in international politics knows that a vassal state does not cease to be a state.

So the question now is, if those who call themselves free market libertarians continue to argue that the (Over)State is antithetical to liberty, then why do they continue to support the same concept as the OverState in the form of private property? The two institutions are identical in concept, and are both diametrically opposed to real individual liberty, yet so many rally to the argument that the State (private property) is indeed the definition of liberty.

This of course, is of little importance to oppressed and exploited peoples everywhere. Oppression by any other name, no matter what institution performs it or for what reason they do so, is still oppression.
The relevant difference here is the difference between individuals and groups.

Furthermore, I would argue that libertarians simply oppose state interference with individual freedom, not its mere existence.

Firstly, where the state maintains a monopoly on violence, the private individual can possess no legitimate claim to violence (except that which abides and furthers the rule of law set by state violence). There cannot be a monopoly held by the individual and the state in unison, monopolies are mutually exclusive by definition.

By that logic, a medieval vassal state was not a state because it had lost its monopoly on the legitimate use of force due to external pressures. The difference here is that there is an agreement (a coercive one at that) that the smaller state (whether it is a medieval vassal state or a property owner, it makes no difference) "agrees" to certain restrictions on its liberty and a certain regulation on its monopoly of force in order to maintain autonomy. Once the ability of the OverState to coerce its vassals is eliminated, the smaller states once again become full States.

This is why your idea of the OverState falls apart: libertarians call for a monopoly on violence placed in the hands of the individual to protect his interests, his claims, namely his self and his property. You are on the right track, though, in proclaiming the the similarity between the property owner and the state, as libertarians wish to create in all individuals a sovereign state. And like the idea of monopolies, there can be no sovereign state that exists under the rule of another state, the OverState as you call it.

If all individuals are to be sovereign states in themselves, then in effect there can be no system of wage labour, as anyone who would have to survive on wages for lack of property would be the same vassal as your private property owner is to the OverState. He has "agree" to give up certain liberties (the right to do what he pleases with his body, and the right to the value of his labor) in exchange for the material security and limited autonomy of a serf. To fully support your paradigm of the sovereign individual, all individuals would have to obtain their living from the ownership of property and not the selling of labor.

The libertarian (ok, maybe just my type of libertarian) does not use an OverState to create a system of vassals, it directly confronts the idea of a sovereign state with the idea of the sovereign individual, and the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

To answer your question directly, libertarians do not support the same concept as the "OverState" in private property, they support the idea of sovereignty, which while easily identified in the nature of the State, is also inseparable from the nature of the free individual.

Once again, I have to make my point that if the private property owner employs other's labor for his economic livelihood, he has created the same coercion as the OverState's coercion, albeit in a microcosm extending only to the borders of his property. So, to redirect my questioning, is it possible to have a system based around sovereign individuals owning private property without some individuals being more sovereign than others?

The relevant difference here is the difference between individuals and groups.

Furthermore, I would argue that libertarians simply oppose state interference with individual freedom, not its mere existence.

The point is that any existence of a state is an interference with individual freedom. The State's monopoly on the legitimate use of force is contingent on its ability to use it to interfere with individual freedom to balance the collective good. So, if the State is denied an ability to interfere in any way, it is no longer a state and has become a sort of social club talking about how they would run the world with no real means of doing anything.

The difference between individuals and groups here is irrelevant. It makes no difference if a single person has a monopoly of force within an area or if a group does. The point that this monopoly becomes destructive to individual liberty, (which it will inevitably do) it becomes illegitimate.

I would note that the State, at least in every form of it that I'm familiar with, is an inherently social entity composed of many individuals. (I suspect Weber would agree that the State is inherently social, given his field of study.) Basically, one property owner can't be a State, though a property collectively owned by many individuals could. A corporation would certainly fit that definition of a State.

The problem is that private property is inherently social. No person can just sit on their land and live off it without being influenced by the actions of dozens of others.

Many people would like to think of it as being the ownership of just one person, but so many other things contribute to the value of property. Our table manners in a restaurant effect value of the property and its credibility as a restaurant. How we take care of our yard subtly influences the property value of a hundred other homes around ours. The trash we pick up on the street subtly changes property values. This is all social activity that relates to the value of private property, yet it so many to continue to hold the all property and commodities are inherently private unless proven otherwise.

Here's the problem with your analysis: The state is a social entity composed of collection of multiple individuals, whereas a single individual cannot be considered to be a state in and of himself as an individual alone cannot be social.

Here's the problem with your analysis: The state is a social entity composed of collection of multiple individuals, whereas a single individual cannot be considered to be a state in and of himself as an individual alone cannot be social.

If he controls the destinies and lives of other people in any way, he most certainly can be an individual. The first States in human history were solely focused on the will of one person, usually a warrior-chieftain who through ingenuity and charisma had succeded in giving himself the position of rule in a community.

The Pharaohs of Egypt were a state personified. All of the authority in the land emanated from the Pharaoh, and no one had any choice but to obey him as a living god. While this may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. If the Pharaoh died, there was no State until a new Pharaoh was crowned. While the later Pharaonic bureaucracies continued their usual duties during this downtime, they did so only on the authority of the dead King, who continued to legally own property in Egypt after his death.

Here's the problem with your analysis: The state is a social entity composed of collection of multiple individuals, whereas a single individual cannot be considered to be a state in and of himself as an individual alone cannot be social.

I buy all property in the United States, and enforce my rule over its inhabitants on the grounds that it's my private property.

State, or not?

Who decides what constitutes an acceptable range of beliefs to qualify for definition? Particularly when you take into consideration how much parties change over time. Being a member of such is more a measure of ideology and philosophy, not numerical counting of each individual belief you hold. One can be libertarian and still support Universal Healthcare for example.

It seems that you've never been introduced to the Political Compass. www.politicalcompass.org .

Basically, instead of one line, there's a pair of axes, economic left-right on one, and social libertarian/authoritarian on the other. You therefore end up with a two dimensional pair of co-ordinates placing you.

By that logic, a medieval vassal state was not a state because it had lost its monopoly on the legitimate use of force due to external pressures. The difference here is that there is an agreement (a coercive one at that) that the smaller state (whether it is a medieval vassal state or a property owner, it makes no difference) "agrees" to certain restrictions on its liberty and a certain regulation on its monopoly of force in order to maintain autonomy. Once the ability of the OverState to coerce its vassals is eliminated, the smaller states once again become full States.

Vassals are difficult to compare to modern states, and if we were, they should probably be considered a component of the state, rather than a state on its own. They were also not always coerced.

And anyways, the libertarian property owner does not agree "to certain restrictions on its liberty and a certain regulation on its monopoly of force in order to maintain autonomy".

If all individuals are to be sovereign states in themselves, then in effect there can be no system of wage labour, as anyone who would have to survive on wages for lack of property would be the same vassal as your private property owner is to the OverState. He has "agree" to give up certain liberties (the right to do what he pleases with his body, and the right to the value of his labor) in exchange for the material security and limited autonomy of a serf. To fully support your paradigm of the sovereign individual, all individuals would have to obtain their living from the ownership of property and not the selling of labor.

Even if you weren't switching the parameters of your argument, you are still committing a nonsequitor.

Once again, I have to make my point that if the private property owner employs other's labor for his economic livelihood, he has created the same coercion as the OverState's coercion, albeit in a microcosm extending only to the borders of his property.

No the owner of property employs his property for his economic livelihood, property being a respected claim, a gift, or the product of labor.

So, to redirect my questioning, is it possible to have a system based around sovereign individuals owning private property without some individuals being more sovereign than others?

Yes.

Vassals are difficult to compare to modern states, and if we were, they should probably be considered a component of the state, rather than a state on its own. They were also not always coerced.

And anyways, the libertarian property owner does not agree "to certain restrictions on its liberty and a certain regulation on its monopoly of force in order to maintain autonomy".

Why do you think i put "agree" in scare quotes? Coerced agreements are commonly held to be "fair agreements" in both political science and economics. The labor contract is no different then the social contract that you struggle against.

Even if you weren't switching the parameters of your argument, you are still committing a nonsequitor.

I'm not shifting, first of all, I'm extending my argument. Secondly, the relationship between a wage laborer to his employer is exactly identical to the relationship between the property owner and the State. The more powerful party in each case has coerced the weaker party to "agree" to certain terms and restrictions of autonomy. These are both contractual agreements, freely undertaken under the pressure of need (the need of the property owner to keep his property forces him to agree to pay taxes just as the need of the wage laborer to survive forces him into usury, rent and bondage.)

No the owner of property employs his property for his economic livelihood, property being a respected claim, a gift, or the product of labor.

I guess then employees are property then. So then I guess I must redirect and ask, "Do you even consider wage labor in your economic models?"

Yes.

How?

The problem is that private property is inherently social. No person can just sit on their land and live off it without being influenced by the actions of dozens of others.

Many people would like to think of it as being the ownership of just one person, but so many other things contribute to the value of property. Our table manners in a restaurant effect value of the property and its credibility as a restaurant. How we take care of our yard subtly influences the property value of a hundred other homes around ours. The trash we pick up on the street subtly changes property values. This is all social activity that relates to the value of private property, yet it so many to continue to hold the all property and commodities are inherently private unless proven otherwise.

So...because they affect it, it's partially theirs? If I inherit my grandfather's property after he dies, and he affected it considerably, then despite being dead he's still partial owner of that property?

I buy all property in the United States, and enforce my rule over its inhabitants on the grounds that it's my private property.

State, or not?
No. You didn't acquire it by force.

No. You didn't acquire it by force.

His point was that the property owner now possesses all of the qualities of a state.

I'm not shifting, first of all, I'm extending my argument.

At first the property owner was the vassal, now the worker is the vassal.

If you wish to argue that society is one big exchange of goods and services, I will not argue, the division of labor necessitates that. If you wish to take exception with the division of labor, you have a tough hill to climb.

Secondly, the relationship between a wage laborer to his employer is exactly identical to the relationship between the property owner and the State. The more powerful party in each case has coerced the weaker party to "agree" to certain terms and restrictions of autonomy. These are both contractual agreements, freely undertaken under the pressure of need (the need of the property owner to keep his property forces him to agree to pay taxes just as the need of the wage laborer to survive forces him into usury, rent and bondage.)

One state vs. thousands of property owners.

Millions of property owners vs. millions of workers.

The armed police state has claimed a monopoly on the ability to maintain the contract unilaterally. The capitalist gets no such claim.

Huge difference.

I guess then employees are property then. So then I guess I must redirect and ask, "Do you even consider wage labor in your economic models?"

You are assuming the marxist LTV theory of exploitation which makes this discussion very difficult.

And in my economic model, wage labor and ownership of capital are objectively the same, to be left up to the subjective opinion of the laborer.

How?

By accepting a reasonable definition of sovereignty.

Will economic rent exist, of course, no two people are alike, and that is one of the beauties of humanity. But will people have the ability to live their lives, yes.

The armed police state has claimed a monopoly on the ability to maintain the contract unilaterally. The capitalist gets no such claim.

Huge difference.

If the state is abolished, then capital will inevitably assume the mantle of the State.

You are assuming the marxist LTV theory of exploitation which makes this discussion very difficult.

And in my economic model, wage labor and ownership of capital are objectively the same, to be left up to the subjective opinion of the laborer.

Exploitation has not even entered this discussion yet. My confusion about your shifting economic paradigm is how it deals with the very obvious power differential between a property owner (individual or corporation, it makes no difference) and each of the multitude of workers he employs. So, now you're telling me that wage labor and ownership of capital are treated objectively the same?

I can't think of a convincing rational to treat the two identically. The first case involves an individual ceding his autonomy to someone else and selling his/her labor at the market rate. The property owner is the founder of his fortunes, under the capitalist model, without him the wage-worker has no recourse but begging. Since unemployment has proven to be a universal constant in this world, there are almost always more potential laborers then there are job openings. The wage laborer can be replaced almost at will. The more employees an employer controls, the more easily he can swap them out as if they were nothing but a sprocket in a machine. So, you of course hastily conclude that I must be some foaming at the mouth Marxist who can't wait to pounce on this idea of "exploitation" whenever I object to the coerced and officially sanctioned domination of the majority of humanity. That's okay, it was all done in the name of this wonderful concept of "economic freedom" and "sovereign individuals"; that makes it all right.

The employment contract is little different than living in the Soviet Union that so called libertarians abhor. Domination, no matter what ideology is used as a mask, is still domination. George Orwell would roll over in his grave if he new that so many people were happily chaining themselves in bondage and declaring their individual sovereignty for doing so.

So...because they affect it, it's partially theirs? If I inherit my grandfather's property after he dies, and he affected it considerably, then despite being dead he's still partial owner of that property?

The point is that any system based on private ownership of productive property is illegitimate and is indeed a form of legalized theft. The claiming of the value of others labor, completely uncompensated would be considered plagiarism in academia. Here, it's good business practice...

The capitalist gets no such claim.

Apples and oranges.

The state rules within its property. The capitalist rules within his or her property.

The state may contract with people outside of its property, for whatever reason (say, a guest worker program.) The capitalist may also contract with people outside his or her property.

In both cases, the fundamental source of power - ownership, sovereignty - is not conditional on the consent of others.

No. You didn't acquire it by force.

What difference does it make?

Perhaps the people who sold it to me can be said to have consented... what of their descendants?

I can, after all, declare that no one can leave... that to pass through the territory next to the border is trespassing.

Indeed, I can do whatever the fuck I want. It is my property. (At least the state can held democratically accountable... sort of, anyway.)

That is "freedom", in a sense, I suppose. For me, anyway.

Your terms are misused. The "territorial monopoly on force" definition of the State means that it forces its residents to accept it as the final arbiter. Whereas, in a stateless private property society one is free to choose who is arbiter and user of force. One could be a vigilante in such an order, because no one is forced to choose any sovereign to determine who is right and wrong in a case. Even if I chase someone off my property, if they wish, they can go to an arbiter and try me for whatever offense they might want to (not that that means I'll be convicted), because I am not a monopolist on the use of force. Therefore, there is no "overstate" over private property "states" as you imply.

Exploitation has not even entered this discussion yet.

Exploitation is the whole of your argument.

In both cases, the fundamental source of power - ownership, sovereignty - is not conditional on the consent of others.

To a large degree, property ownership (as well as the state) will always be conditional on the consent of others.

But it is the very nature of sovereignty to live of one's own volition, and not to live because other's say you can.

Both you and Trots would do well to not base the comparisons on sovereignty itself (as very few object to individual sovereignty as a good), but to establish what property is an illegitimate level of control.

To a large degree, property ownership (as well as the state) will always be conditional on the consent of others.

Yeah, in that everybody else doesn't overthrow the system that protects it.

But since I'm the person advocating that, and you're the person saying that we should leave people's private property alone (well, sort of, anyway), I'm not sure what your point is.

But it is the very nature of sovereignty to live of one's own volition, and not to live because other's say you can.

I was not referring to individual sovereignty. I was referring to the state's sovereignty.

George W. Bush's right to life is not founded on the fact that he has the most powerful group of professional killers in the world at his beck and call.

Both you and Trots would do well to not base the comparisons on sovereignty itself (as very few object to individual sovereignty as a good), but to establish what property is an illegitimate level of control.

I would say that we might be mistaken of thinking in terms of "sovereignty" at all... but I'll accept the framework for the moment.

Broadly, the difference concerns power; it is the distinction between "power over myself" and "power over others." The line of demarcation here is one of equality.

The question then becomes: what kinds of property relations lead to unequal power relations?

The right-wing libertarian approach, of course, starts with the same distinction, but rejects equality (at least as leftists understand it) as the border line. But it fails to recognize that with its framework of property, it is not difficult at all (at least on a theoretical level) to have fundamentally unequal and unfree social relations - that the line it proposes doesn't work. That is what the comparison with the state is supposed to prove.

In order to remain an anti-statist while accepting absolute private property rights, the right-wing libertarian must accept that the problem with the state is not its abuses - not the draft, not the privileging of certain people over others, not persecution, not genocide, not the mass slaughter of statist wars, not the protection of the illegitimate property of the rich, not the general quality of unfreedom associated with other people making decisions about your life for you - but the simple fact that all of this power was not acquired legitimately, by appropriation by labor and exchange with other property owners.

As if such power could ever be acquired legitimately - could ever be legitimate at all. Even in theory.

Your terms are misused. The "territorial monopoly on force" definition of the State means that it forces its residents to accept it as the final arbiter. Whereas, in a stateless private property society one is free to choose who is arbiter and user of force. One could be a vigilante in such an order, because no one is forced to choose any sovereign to determine who is right and wrong in a case. Even if I chase someone off my property, if they wish, they can go to an arbiter and try me for whatever offense they might want to (not that that means I'll be convicted), because I am not a monopolist on the use of force. Therefore, there is no "overstate" over private property "states" as you imply.And likewise, a person who feels oppressed by a particular state can always ask another state to take action.

The point is that any system based on private ownership of productive property is illegitimate and is indeed a form of legalized theft. The claiming of the value of others labor, completely uncompensated would be considered plagiarism in academia. Here, it's good business practice...

My point would be that your earlier point about private property being social in the sense that the behavior of others affects it doesn't get you to social ownership.

You can point out all you like that other things affect (either positively or negatively) the value of property, like other people or even weather patterns, but it doesn't mean that other people have any more ownership of it than the weather does.

I really think you have to make a much better argument against private property and for social property than "other people affect it".

My point would be that your earlier point about private property being social in the sense that the behavior of others affects it doesn't get you to social ownership.

You can point out all you like that other things affect (either positively or negatively) the value of property, like other people or even weather patterns, but it doesn't mean that other people have any more ownership of it than the weather does.

I really think you have to make a much better argument against private property and for social property than "other people affect it".

We're kinda getting off the subject here. I'd gladly entertain a thread about the conceptual legitimacy of private property, but right now, I'm trying to focus the debate around the property owner's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. My argument against private property in this thread was that it creates a private state- a totalitarian one at that.

The concept of private property, whether it exists as a small business or as a giant multi-national corporation gives the owner(s) a monopoly on the use of force within that domain. Because of the impossibility of living by any other means, millions of people are coerced more often by their landowner or employer than the State itself. If you piss your landlord off, he can evict you, no questions asked. He can force you out of his property at gunpoint during the middle of the cold winter if his whims require it. This is perfectly legal. A property owner can use whatever means nescesary to protect their property. If property rights are held to be absolute, striking workers could be shot, and this would be perfectly legal. The owners were only protecting the value of their property from these "vicious" hooligans who were trying to get a decent wage. When the ability of the State to interfere with business is eliminated, as our so-called libertarian friends would like to have, then business becomes the state.

Property owners at this point has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their domains. The State's regulation of this so-called "free" contract between owner and wage-slave is abolished. This brave new world won't be some libertopia--it will be an authoritarian nightmare. Many of the top 50 economies in the world aren't sovereign nations-they are US based multi-national corporations. Many own billions of dollars in resources, and control large swathes of territory. Absent any anti-trust laws, the merging that is so rampant now will continue, and we'll end up with trusts all over again. Absent any public state law enforcement, private business will take this up--for a price. Each corporation will become a mini-Soviet Union in itself, substituting the communist dogma for a newer, "more enlightened" dogma of libertarianism, which like Bolshevism, will lead many willingly to their chains.

Without any extra questioning, this society is considered just. One person could gain control of the entire means of human survival and it would still be considered just by libertarian theory. They only obeyed the rules of market exchange...

In order to enforce these rights, the private property owner is given the right to exclude others from his property, and may use any force necessary to do so.

any force legally allowed.

In order to maintain control of his property, an owner may use force to exclude others from his property, or force those who cannot/will not leave to obey his dictates.

only within the confines of the law. The law, mind you, created in the state. (Not private property.)

So, succinctly, private property rights grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to private property, and thus makes private property a State within itself.

Nonsense.

If we accept the thesis that private property exists without what will henceforth be labeled the OverState creating its existence and defining it as an institution, then these smaller States defined by private property are merely vassal states of a much larger OverState. Anyone versed in international politics knows that a vassal state does not cease to be a state.

Yeah. According to your definition and word twisting, your body is a state.

Hence, you're just a vassal state! Now the question is how come you, obviously against the concept of private property, are so cruelly and shamefully denying access to your body property! Why, I bet you'd even defend your property with any force you deemed necessary!

I love it. Entertain me some more.

The two institutions are identical in concept, and are both diametrically opposed to real individual liberty, yet so many rally to the argument that the State (private property) is indeed the definition of liberty.

I guess not everyone is willing to casually redefine words to suit a ridiculous communistic paradigm and rant on about "exploited peoples" like they have ambitions to be the next Marx or something. Not everyone is willing to accept ridiculous premises and then the raving conclusions based on them. Not everyone, it seems, is you.

any force legally allowed.

Which negates the right-wing libertarian concept of the immaculate conception of private property. Either the state defines the property contract or it doesn't, and private property is indeed a form of a state.

only within the confines of the law. The law, mind you, created in the state. (Not private property.)

Absent the ability of the State to regulate property ownership (which is the right-wing libertarians raison d'etre), then the property owner is completely sovereign over his domain and is hence a state.

Nonsense.

If the shoe fits...

Yeah. According to your definition and word twisting, your body is a state.

Hence, you're just a vassal state! Now the question is how come you, obviously against the concept of private property, are so cruelly and shamefully denying access to your body property! Why, I bet you'd even defend your property with any force you deemed necessary!

I love it. Entertain me some more.

The difference is that I don't accept the thesis of "self-ownership" because it separates the objective self from the subjective self. Of course, under a libertarian code of law where I owe myself, it would be an unescesary "restriction of free contract" to generally stop the selling of one's body to another person.

I guess not everyone is willing to casually redefine words to suit a ridiculous communistic paradigm and rant on about "exploited peoples" like they have ambitions to be the next Marx or something. Not everyone is willing to accept ridiculous premises and then the raving conclusions based on them. Not everyone, it seems, is you.

I'm not casually redefining words. If the sovereign individual has the ability to use force on others via private property rights, and those others have no legal recourse but to acquiesce, then property rights have made the sovereign individual into a sovereign state with the right to coerce others.

Yeah, in that everybody else doesn't overthrow the system that protects it.

But since I'm the person advocating that, and you're the person saying that we should leave people's private property alone (well, sort of, anyway), I'm not sure what your point is.

I believe private property will be consented upon.

I was not referring to individual sovereignty. I was referring to the state's sovereignty.

George W. Bush's right to life is not founded on the fact that he has the most powerful group of professional killers in the world at his beck and call.

The point of this thread, or at least I thought was to show how the property owner and the state are one and the same, and it seems that the only correlation is sovereignty.

But you explicitly referred to both forms of sovereignty, property and national borders.

Broadly, the difference concerns power; it is the distinction between "power over myself" and "power over others." The line of demarcation here is one of equality.

The question then becomes: what kinds of property relations lead to unequal power relations?

All social relations inherently carry unequal power relations.

The right-wing libertarian approach, of course, starts with the same distinction, but rejects equality (at least as leftists understand it) as the border line. But it fails to recognize that with its framework of property, it is not difficult at all (at least on a theoretical level) to have fundamentally unequal and unfree social relations - that the line it proposes doesn't work.

Can you show me a system that does away with market relations or does away with economic rent, that you would actually endorse?

That is what the comparison with the state is supposed to prove.

How is that?

In order to remain an anti-statist while accepting absolute private property rights, the right-wing libertarian must accept that the problem with the state is not its abuses - not the draft, not the privileging of certain people over others, not persecution, not genocide, not the mass slaughter of statist wars, not the protection of the illegitimate property of the rich, not the general quality of unfreedom associated with other people making decisions about your life for you - but the simple fact that all of this power was not acquired legitimately, by appropriation by labor and exchange with other property owners.

Property is established through a mutual agreement towards a claim, not through appropriation by labor, labor merely being a very direct and common legitimization of the claim. Labor does not make something one's own, others respecting your claim to your product make's it your own.

As for the rest, what's your point?

The point of this thread, or at least I thought was to show how the property owner and the state are one and the same, and it seems that the only correlation is sovereignty.

Sovereignty over property and sovereignty over a state can neither be neatly folded into "individual sovereignty."

All social relations inherently carry unequal power relations.

Perhaps. But some are more egregiously so than others.

Can you show me a system that does away with market relations or does away with economic rent, that you would actually endorse?

My objection was specifically directed against unequal power relations... and at the very least it is not difficult to imagine an economic system that would permit equal participation of community members in economic decisions.

How is that?

Because all libertarians agree that state power is easily abused, and must be strictly limited (if not abolished.)

If private property leads to state-like power relations, it follows that it, too, is easily abused, and must be strictly limited (if not abolished.)

Property is established through a mutual agreement towards a claim, not through appropriation by labor, labor merely being a very direct and common legitimization of the claim. Labor does not make something one's own, others respecting your claim to your product make's it your own.

Yes, this is true as a matter of fact.

But appropriation by labor is claimed to establish property as a matter of right. That is to say, people are morally obligated to agree to such a property claim.

As for the rest, what's your point?

That generally people who object to the state, whatever their economic stance, are more concerned with the character of its rule than the origin of its rule - and for good reason.

It follows that they accept that an essentially propertarian relation can be authoritarian and unfree - whatever the basis for the property claim.

Edit: Indeed, since the origin for virtually all property in this world is pretty clearly illegitimate by natural rights theories of property, it would be hypocritical to object to the state on the grounds that its property has no legitimate origin - unless you object to everything else with it.

Sovereignty over property and sovereignty over a state can neither be neatly folded into "individual sovereignty."

Why couldn't property be "folded into 'individual sovereignty'"?

Perhaps. But some are more egregiously so than others.

And that depends on your viewpoint.

Because all libertarians agree that state power is easily abused, and must be strictly limited (if not abolished.)

I argue that it be abolished not because it can be abused, but because it is illegitimate.

That generally people who object to the state, whatever their economic stance, are more concerned with the character of its rule than the origin of its rule - and for good reason.

And by extension those who object to the state do not oppose what they consider to be just and benevolent rule?

Edit: Indeed, since the origin for virtually all property in this world is pretty clearly illegitimate by natural rights theories of property, it would be hypocritical to object to the state on the grounds that its property has no legitimate origin - unless you object to everything else with it.

I do not support the idea of natural rights.

Why couldn't property be "folded into 'individual sovereignty'"?

Because my sovereignty over myself has very little to do with my sovereignty over a factory in Thailand.

And if it somehow could, I fail to see why my sovereignty over any given state couldn't be folded into it, either. Which would make anti-statism a gross violation of a lot of people's individual sovereignty.

And that depends on your viewpoint.

Not really. Inequality in power is not really that subjective a concept.

I argue that it be abolished not because it can be abused, but because it is illegitimate.

"Illegitimate" in what way?

And by extension those who object to the state do not oppose what they consider to be just and benevolent rule?

Of course they do.

But their objection is still (typically) to the power relation.

Because my sovereignty over myself has very little to do with my sovereignty over a factory in Thailand.

It depends on the direct relationship between that factory and your life up to this point.

And if it somehow could, I fail to see why my sovereignty over any given state couldn't be folded into it, either. Which would make anti-statism a gross violation of a lot of people's individual sovereignty.

How is that?

Not really. Inequality in power is not really that subjective a concept.

But your opinion that property leads to particularly "egregious" power relations is.

"Illegitimate" in what way?

It has never been consentually built from the individual up, it has always been imposed.

When the residual state has been finally dissolved, and all men are sovereign and in control of their product, society will form state like institutions that will be distinguishable from the state in that they are composed of freely-associating, self-interested individuals.

Of course they do.

But their objection is still (typically) to the power relation.

No, those who oppose the state do not oppose the state because it does immoral things, they oppose the state because it is immoral it-of-itself.

In my personal opinion, all of those evils you listed should be fought against, but they are not the reason I oppose the state.

How is that?

It depends on the direct relationship between that factory and your life up to this point.

You answered your own question. ;)

But your opinion that property leads to particularly "egregious" power relations is.

Insofar as "egregious" is subjective, sure. So?

So is my opinion that inequality in power is generally bad.

It has never been consentually built from the individual up, it has always been imposed.

And property is any different?

and in control of their product

And will this "control" be a matter of collective consent?

Or will it be imposed usurpation... like the state?

No, those who oppose the state do not oppose the state because it does immoral things, they oppose the state because it is immoral it-of-itself.

Yes... and the state instrinsically constitutes an unjust power relation.

My examples were merely demonstrations of this power relation.

The state protects my capital and property from anarchist thieves.

Glory be!

My guns protect mine from anarchist thieves.

You answered your own question. ;)

So if a person built a government, he would have a legitimate state?

If people agreed to live under it, sure, I suppose, but it is difficult to call it a state.

And property is any different?

As I view it, it is.

And will this "control" be a matter of collective consent?

Or will it be imposed usurpation... like the state?

It will be both, like the state, like all rights, like all manners of resource distribution outside of altruistic gifting.

Thats not true.
I concur.

If people agreed to live under it, sure, I suppose, but it is difficult to call it a state.

Where does "agreement" come in?

I can always stop them from leaving... "trespassing" and all that.

As I view it, it is.

How?

It will be both, like the state, like all rights, like all manners of resource distribution outside of altruistic gifting.

So would people have the right to decide collectively what kinds of property they would permit, and what kinds of property they wouldn't?

If not... how is it any less of an imposition than the state?

I buy all property in the United States, and enforce my rule over its inhabitants on the grounds that it's my private property.

State, or not?

shit, you could even skip owning everything, and just buy a collar of land around the place you want to rule and build a wall (and buy up the airports too). people inside would probably 'agree' to just about anything.

Where does "agreement" come in?

I can always stop them from leaving... "trespassing" and all that.

How could you stop someone from leaving?

Why would you want to?

So would people have the right to decide collectively what kinds of property they would permit, and what kinds of property they wouldn't?

Yes, what is property within an anarchy will be emergent through the market and its pricing functions.

How could you stop someone from leaving?

"I deny you the right to travel across this territory next to the border."

Why would you want to?

To avoid competition.

The same reason any state would want the same thing.

Yes, what is property within an anarchy will be emergent through the market and its pricing functions.

You have it reversed. The market and its pricing functions emerge from a system of private property and exchange.

For anarcho-capitalism to work, it would have to start from a pre-existing system of property.

You have it reversed. The market and its pricing functions emerge from a system of private property and exchange.

For anarcho-capitalism to work, it would have to start from a pre-existing system of property.

The market emerges from a distribution of limited resources where people claim entitlement to scarce goods. It would be the process by which property claims are legitimized.

Only when the state legitimizes property is the market emergent from property, at all other times, property is emergent from the market.

The market emerges from a distribution of limited resources where people claim entitlement to scarce goods.

Then all kinds of societies could result. You have no guarantee that the ending arrangement of property will be anything close to an actual market.

Then all kinds of societies could result. You have no guarantee that the ending arrangement of property will be anything close to an actual market.

Like what?

Like what?

"Primitive" communism. Virtually any variety of left-anarchism.

And those are just the obvious ones.

We're kinda getting off the subject here. I'd gladly entertain a thread about the conceptual legitimacy of private property, but right now, I'm trying to focus the debate around the property owner's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. My argument against private property in this thread was that it creates a private state- a totalitarian one at that.

Yeah, I remember. I pointed out that private property with a single owner doesn't fit the definition of a state, but private property with multiple owners (like a corporation) would.

I could see you making an argument against corporations under a libertarian framework based on the fact that they are in essence totalitarian states, but that argument just does not work with single-owner properties.

The concept of private property, whether it exists as a small business or as a giant multi-national corporation gives the owner(s) a monopoly on the use of force within that domain. Because of the impossibility of living by any other means, millions of people are coerced more often by their landowner or employer than the State itself. If you piss your landlord off, he can evict you, no questions asked. He can force you out of his property at gunpoint during the middle of the cold winter if his whims require it. This is perfectly legal. A property owner can use whatever means nescesary to protect their property. If property rights are held to be absolute, striking workers could be shot, and this would be perfectly legal. The owners were only protecting the value of their property from these "vicious" hooligans who were trying to get a decent wage. When the ability of the State to interfere with business is eliminated, as our so-called libertarian friends would like to have, then business becomes the state.

Property owners at this point has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their domains. The State's regulation of this so-called "free" contract between owner and wage-slave is abolished. This brave new world won't be some libertopia--it will be an authoritarian nightmare. Many of the top 50 economies in the world aren't sovereign nations-they are US based multi-national corporations. Many own billions of dollars in resources, and control large swathes of territory. Absent any anti-trust laws, the merging that is so rampant now will continue, and we'll end up with trusts all over again. Absent any public state law enforcement, private business will take this up--for a price. Each corporation will become a mini-Soviet Union in itself, substituting the communist dogma for a newer, "more enlightened" dogma of libertarianism, which like Bolshevism, will lead many willingly to their chains.

I think you're making some good points about the dangers of corporations here too.

Without any extra questioning, this society is considered just. One person could gain control of the entire means of human survival and it would still be considered just by libertarian theory. They only obeyed the rules of market exchange...

One person really couldn't gain control of that many resources for practical reasons unless they were something like a comic book supervillian, but a corporate entity could.

I'm a capitalist myself, but I'm reluctant to endorse the idea that a corporate system flows from the idea of a free market. Corporations tend to stifle healthy competition and creativity while promoting micro-management and pettiness, and they're artificial legal constructs rather than genuine persons. They simply aren't subject to the same kinds of pressures that persons are, and this affects the way they participate in a market.

"Primitive" communism. Virtually any variety of left-anarchism.

And those are just the obvious ones.

Primitivism avoids the market because it avoids scarcity. If there exists scarcity of resources within a primitive society, there will immediately exist a market of negotiation and exchange.

Leftist anarchism can only come about through expectation of reciprocal treatment, hence exchange, hence the market.

Primitivism avoids the market because it avoids scarcity.

I did not say "primitivism." I said "'primitive' communism."

I am referring to the property arrangement, not the technological level.

Leftist anarchism can only come about through expectation of reciprocal treatment, hence exchange, hence the market.

Yes, that's true.

If you equivocate and define the market to mean "the sum total of every action" (because every action carries with it assumptions about consequences), then every system imaginable is a market system.

This, of course, gets us absolutely nowhere.

I am referring to the property arrangement, not the technological level.

Explain it to me, especially how one is possible without the other.

Yes, that's true.

If you equivocate and define the market to mean "the sum total of every action" (because every action carries with it assumptions about consequences), then every system imaginable is a market system.

This, of course, gets us absolutely nowhere.

No, I refer to the market as the sum total of every exchange and negotiation in settling scarce resource distribution.

Yeah, I remember. I pointed out that private property with a single owner doesn't fit the definition of a state, but private property with multiple owners (like a corporation) would.

I could see you making an argument against corporations under a libertarian framework based on the fact that they are in essence totalitarian states, but that argument just does not work with single-owner properties.

I think you're making some good points about the dangers of corporations here too.

Well, I'm glad we can find some middle ground that we can both agree on.

One person really couldn't gain control of that many resources for practical reasons unless they were something like a comic book supervillian, but a corporate entity could.

I'm a capitalist myself, but I'm reluctant to endorse the idea that a corporate system flows from the idea of a free market. Corporations tend to stifle healthy competition and creativity while promoting micro-management and pettiness, and they're artificial legal constructs rather than genuine persons. They simply aren't subject to the same kinds of pressures that persons are, and this affects the way they participate in a market.

The way that property law works is that it treats a corporation as a single, immortal person. And, under the definition of justice put forth by many libertarians, if 1 person were to have the means to buy the entire means of life in an area, it would have to be accepted and no one could "legitimately" relieve him of his property, no matter how abusive the person/corporation was.

I think that a lot of soul searching needs to be done by most persons in the libertarian right, and they need to ask themselves what exactly are we advocating, and what would that result in. It seems that you've already asked those questions to yourself, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, these self-described individualists that inhabit much of the right-libertarian movement tend to follow others, and not think for themselves.

Well, I'm glad we can find some middle ground that we can both agree on.

The way that property law works is that it treats a corporation as a single, immortal person. And, under the definition of justice put forth by many libertarians, if 1 person were to have the means to buy the entire means of life in an area, it would have to be accepted and no one could "legitimately" relieve him of his property, no matter how abusive the person/corporation was.

Indeed. Treating a corporation as a person seems to be a mistake to me, because, well, it's not one.

I think that a lot of soul searching needs to be done by most persons in the libertarian right, and they need to ask themselves what exactly are we advocating, and what would that result in. It seems that you've already asked those questions to yourself, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, these self-described individualists that inhabit much of the right-libertarian movement tend to follow others, and not think for themselves.

That seems to be a strong tendency in a lot of ideological groupings.

No, I refer to the market as the sum total of every exchange and negotiation in settling scarce resource distribution.

The market is one method of "exchange and negotiation in settling scarce resource distribution" - one defined by the consensual exchange of privately-owned goods and services.

It is not the only one. Central planning is not a market system.

The market is one method of "exchange and negotiation in settling scarce resource distribution" - one defined by the consensual exchange of privately-owned goods and services.

It is not the only one. Central planning is not a market system.

It is a reaction to the market, and the market will eventually adapt to it.