NationStates Jolt Archive

I have constantly been at odds with many on this forum because I feel that they simply do not understand libertarianism. It is understandable because far too many libertarians treat the ideology as a way of defending present capitalism. However, I could rest easier if people understood the real political idealogy behind it, rather than the surface appearance that many people manipulate to suit their own agendas.

In this interest I am posting an article written by the bastion of evil himself, Murray Rothbard, in The Libertarian Forum on June 15th, 1969:


CONFISCATION AND THE HOMESTEAD PRINCIPLE

Karl Hess's brilliant and challenging article in this issue raises a problem of specifics that ranges further than the libertarian movement. For example, there must be hundreds of thousands of "professional" anti-Communists in this country. Yet not one of these gentry, in the course of their fulminations, has come up with a specific plan for de-Communization. Suppose, for example, that Messers. Brezhnev and Co. become converted to the principles of a free society; they than [sic] ask our anti-Communists, all right, how do we go about de-socializing? What could our anti-Communists offer them?

This question has been essentially answered by the exciting developments of Tito's Yugoslavia. Beginning in 1952, Yugoslavia has been de-socializing at a remarkable rate. The principle the Yugoslavs have used is the libertarian "homesteading" one: the state-owned factories to the workers that work in them! The nationalized plants in the "public" sector have all been transferred in virtual ownership to the specific workers who work in the particular plants, thus making them producers' coops, and moving rapidly in the direction of individual shares of virtual ownership to the individual worker. What other practicable route toward destatization could there be? The principle in the Communist countries should be: land to the peasants and the factories to the workers, thereby getting the property out of the hands of the State and into private, homesteading hands.

The homesteading principle means that the way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor. This is clear in the case of the pioneer and virgin land. But what of the case of stolen property?

Suppose, for example, that A steals B's horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent "private" sector and out of the "criminal" sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C's hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.

Let us now apply our libertarian theory of property to the case of property in the hands of, or derived from, the State apparatus. The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called "taxation" and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around. Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty. In the case of the State, furthermore, the victim is not readily identifiable as B, the horse-owner. All taxpayers, all draftees, all victims of the State have been mulcted. How to go about returning all this property to the taxpayers? What proportions should be used in this terrific tangle of robbery and injustice that we have all suffered at the hands of the State? Often, the most practical method of de-statizing is simply to grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State. Of this group, the most morally deserving are the ones who are already using the property but who have no moral complicity in the State's act of aggression. These people then become the "homesteaders" of the stolen property and hence the rightful owners.

Take, for example, the State universities. This is property built on funds stolen from the taxpayers. Since the State has not found or put into effect a way of returning ownership of this property to the taxpaying public, the proper owners of this university are the "homesteaders", those who have already been using and therefore "mixing their labor" with the facilities. The prime consideration is to deprive the thief, in this case the State, as quickly as possible of the ownership and control of its ill-gotten gains, to return the property to the innocent, private sector. This means student and/or faculty ownership of the universities.

As between the two groups, the students have a prior claim, for the students have been paying at least some amount to support the university whereas the faculty suffer from the moral taint of living off State funds and thereby becoming to some extent a part of the State apparatus.



The same principle applies to nominally "private" property which really comes from the State as a result of zealous lobbying on behalf of the recipient. Columbia University, for example, which receives nearly two-thirds of its income from government, is only a "private" college in the most ironic sense. It deserves a similar fate of virtuous homesteading confiscation.

But if Columbia University, what of General Dynamics? What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to "private" property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their "private" property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horsethief and the murdered [sic] must be "respected".



But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the "private property" of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute? And, further more, even if the government should decide to nationalize General Dynamics—without compensation, of course—per se and not as a prelude to redistribution to the taxpayers, this is not immoral or something to be combatted. For it would only mean that one gang of thieves—the government—would be confiscating property from another previously cooperating gang, the corporation that has lived off the government. I do not often agree with John Kenneth Galbraith, but his recent suggestion to nationalize businesses which get more than 75% of their revenue from government, or from the military, has considerable merit. Certainly it does not mean aggression against private property, and, furthermore, we could expect a considerable diminution of zeal from the military-industrial complex if much of the profits were taken out of war and plunder. And besides, it would make the American military machine less efficient, being governmental, and that is surely all to the good. But why stop at 75%? Fifty per cent seems to be a reasonable cutoff point on whether an organization is largely public or largely private.

And there is another consideration. Dow Chemical, for example, has been heavily criticized for making napalm for the U.S. military machine. The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.

This brings us to Karl's point about slaves. One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land—their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation. The fact that the land remained in the hands of the lords paved the way inexorably for the Bolshevik Revolution, since the revolution that had freed the serfs remained unfinished.

The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to "reparations", reparations for the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist's call for "40 acres and a mule" to the former slaves. In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed.

Alan Milchman, in the days when he was a brilliant young libertarian activist, first pointed out that libertarians had misled themselves by making their main dichotomy "government" vs. "private" with the former bad and the latter good. Government, he pointed out, is after all not a mystical entity but a group of individuals, "private" individuals if you will, acting in the manner of an organized criminal gang. But this means that there may also be "private" criminals as well as people directly affiliated with the government. What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not "private" property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus.

Heh, Rothbard supports nationalization of (some) industry and reparations for slavery.

the problem i have always had with libertarians is not so much the philosophy (which doesnt need to be taken to insane levels but can be used as a guiding principle) but that its leaders are nutz. as indicated by this guy.

im sorry but if you steal the horse from A you are still a thief and the horse doesnt belong to you at all.

ya i got a little farther than that but its too long and continues in the same vein.

Kevin Carson (mutualist.blogspot.com) argues along similar lines.

I don't really believe that a free market at the present level of economic development can ever produce a society egalitarian enough to be just and free, but if done right, it isn't too inconceivable that it could produce something much better than what we have now.

Heh, Rothbard supports nationalization of (some) industry and reparations for slavery.

No he doesn't support nationalization of industry, rather removing it from state control and giving it to the workers as rightful private owners.

It should be noted that he prefers ownership by workers as carried out by individual shares.

No he doesn't support nationalization of industry, rather removing it from state control and giving it to the workers as rightful private owners.

It should be noted that he prefers ownership by workers as carried out by individual shares.To be fair, the nationalization was just a transitional state between the current distribution of property and the one envisioned by Rothbard.
I certainly don't have a problem with returning industries to the people who work in them.

the problem i have always had with libertarians is not so much the philosophy (which doesnt need to be taken to insane levels but can be used as a guiding principle) but that its leaders are nutz. as indicated by this guy.

im sorry but if you steal the horse from A you are still a thief and the horse doesnt belong to you at all.

ya i got a little farther than that but its too long and continues in the same vein.

If you cannot give it back to B, then who does it belong to?

No he doesn't support nationalization of industry, rather removing it from state control and giving it to the workers as rightful private owners.

It should be noted that he prefers ownership by workers as carried out by individual shares.

and there are business in the US that are owned by the workers or the producers. its a great way to make things fair.

its quite different than taking it from is owner and giving it to the workers.

Kevin Carson (mutualist.blogspot.com) argues along similar lines.

I don't really believe that a free market at the present level of economic development can ever produce a society egalitarian enough to be just and free, but if done right, it isn't too inconceivable that it could produce something much better than what we have now.

Yes I am very familiar with Kevin Carson.

Here is his article on the subject:

Libertarian Property and Privatization: An Alternative Paradigm (http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=417)

All I hear on NS is "libertarianism = GUNS FOR ALL!":D

Forgive me for sort of tuning out as a reflex action now.

If you cannot give it back to B, then who does it belong to?

if you cant find B then you do what we do now. you keep it for a number of years hoping that B will come forward and if he doesnt eventually it passes to the state. it NEVER is given to a thief even if he stole it from another thief.

its quite different than taking it from is owner and giving it to the workers.

Rothbard would agree: if we are talking about RIGHTFUL owners.

But we are not. We are talking about people whose ownership is the result of the state stealing from other people. As the beneficiaries of theft, they have no right to their property. Since it cannot be returned to its rightful owners, it reverts to the state of nature, and thus can be claimed by those who contribute their labor to it: the workers.

(I don't believe in appropriation by labor and I have no problem with the expropriation of private means of production, even if it is not subsidized by the state, but that's Rothbard's logic, as I understand it.)

To be fair, the nationalization was just a transitional state between the current distribution of property and the one envisioned by Rothbard.
I certainly don't have a problem with returning industries to the people who work in them.

Yes, but he considers the nationlization to be illegitimate.

That was the point of the horse stealing analogy. Even though the workers gain their property via illegitimate means, the state is responsible for that and we cannot hold the workers responsible. Therefore we should be very happy to see national industry given to the workers.

and there are business in the US that are owned by the workers or the producers. its a great way to make things fair.

its quite different than taking it from is owner and giving it to the workers.He doesn't want to take all businesses, just the ones that receive the majority of their funding from the taxpayers. In his mind, they're government property anyway.

All I hear on NS is "libertarianism = GUNS FOR ALL!":D

Forgive me for sort of tuning out as a reflex action now.To be fair, libertarianism is much more broad than that. It is true that some people try to distill it to that, but there's much more to it.

All I hear on NS is "libertarianism = GUNS FOR ALL!":D

Forgive me for sort of tuning out as a reflex action now.

Yes, the overwhelming opinion of libertarians is that of republicans who are soft on drugs and gays.

Rothbard would agree: if we are talking about RIGHTFUL owners.

But we are not. We are talking about people whose ownership is the result of the state stealing from other people. As the beneficiaries of theft, they have no right to their property. Since it cannot be returned to its rightful owners, it reverts to the state of nature, and thus can be claimed by those who contribute their labor to it: the workers.

(I don't believe in appropriation by labor and I have no problem with the expropriation of private means of production, even if it is not subsidized by the state, but that's Rothbard's logic, as I understand it.)

yeah but then you have to agree that taxation is theft and i find that theory stupid.

Yes, the overwhelming opinion of libertarians is that of republicans who are soft on drugs and gays.
*shudders and pictures Regan waving a pride flag while dressed in a nappy and smoking weed...*

(I don't believe in appropriation by labor and I have no problem with the expropriation of private means of production, even if it is not subsidized by the state, but that's Rothbard's logic, as I understand it.)

I do not agree with appropriation by labor, either, but it is important to show that libertarians are not just corporate apologists.

He doesn't want to take all businesses, just the ones that receive the majority of their funding from the taxpayers. In his mind, they're government property anyway.


which in my mind is all part of him being nutz.

To be fair, libertarianism is much more broad than that. It is true that some people try to distill it to that, but there's much more to it.

I'm aware of that my jiggly friend...but it seems that quite a few NS Libertarians aren't. So good on Vitt for expanding their view a little...

If you cannot give it back to B, then who does it belong to?

the guy who needs it most? they both stole it, so it doesn't really belong to either one.
Alternatively they could always set it free in the wild, it is an animal after all...

All I hear on NS is "libertarianism = GUNS FOR ALL!":D

Forgive me for sort of tuning out as a reflex action now.

Well, that and the myth of the self-made man. That gets a little tiring too.

Well, that and the myth of the self-made man. That gets a little tiring too.
That is the one that bothers me the most. "Let's ignore all the factors that discredit our theory!"

Yes, but he considers the nationlization to be illegitimate.

That was the point of the horse stealing analogy. Even though the workers gain their property via illegitimate means, the state is responsible for that and we cannot hold the workers responsible. Therefore we should be very happy to see national industry given to the workers.Well, I was referring to this part:

But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the "private property" of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute? .

Granted, it would be nothing more than tearing up the deed to the property that belongs to the original owner and writing a new one for the workers, so it's not the same thing as most nationalization is, but in the time between the two deeds, the property would be nationalized.

which in my mind is all part of him being nutz.Fair enough.

I'm aware of that my jiggly friend...but it seems that quite a few NS Libertarians aren't. So good on Vitt for expanding their view a little...I agree. :)

*shudders and pictures Regan waving a pride flag while dressed in a nappy and smoking weed...*

I have that poster hanging in my room.

Libertarians; supporting your right to do whatever you want behind gated communities and away from the lazy riff-raff. Who needs a social conscience when you can afford to sequester yourself away from the problem?

(I'll admit, I couldn't bring myself to read the OP in its entirety.)

Yes I am very familiar with Kevin Carson.

You would be.

Actually, it may have been you whose link I followed to him in the first place... if very rough, questionable memory serves me, something about the New Left analysis of how government regulation strengthened the hand of corporate power.

Here is his article on the subject:

Libertarian Property and Privatization: An Alternative Paradigm (http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=417)

Worker ownership in the context of a free market has its problems, though.

If not done on the basis of individual shares, the incentive to hire new workers is dramatically lowered: since each new one will be an equal owner, it will only be done when necessary to maximize profit per worker, rather than total profits.

If done on the basis of individual shares, the old imbalance of power between employer and employed returns, and with it the concentration of wealth and power, and possibly coercive institutions capable of re-acquiring illegitimate property.

Granted, it would be nothing more than tearing up the deed to the property that belongs to the original owner and writing a new one for the workers, so it's not the same thing as most nationalization is, but in the time between the two deeds, the property would be nationalized.

Yes, he and I both see a need for redistribution and reparations.

The question is whether the slow elimination of government will provide for this, or if government must take positive action.

(I'll admit, I couldn't bring myself to read the OP in its entirety.)

Then please don't comment.

The essential problem with Libertariansm is actually extremely simple. Indeed, it is the same problem at the heart of most political, economic and religious ideologies of any and all sorts:

Way too much of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism), and none or extremely little of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). Truth is the sum of the flatulence echoing between my ears, countervailing evidence be damned.

As far as the more specific focus of this thread goes, if one wants to understand the development of the fine art of theft in human society, one need only study the history of economic theory. Bah, I'll just save you all the effort: "all for me and none for you."

Always seems to be loads of "volunteer firemen" and no mention of who volunteers to do the sewer maintenance to me......

You would be.

Actually, it may have been you whose link I followed to him in the first place... if very rough, questionable memory serves me, something about the New Left analysis of how government regulation strengthened the hand of corporate power.

Yes, I believe that was from his Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, which is a very good, if dry, read.

If not done on the basis of individual shares, the incentive to hire new workers is dramatically lowered: since each new one will be an equal owner, it will only be done when necessary to maximize profit per worker, rather than total profits.

Yes, only will someone be brought into the business when his output increases the output of his coworkers.

If done on the basis of individual shares, the old imbalance of power between employer and employed returns, and with it the concentration of wealth and power, and possibly coercive institutions capable of re-acquiring illegitimate property.

I don't understand how you get this conclusion.

Yes, he and I both see a need for redistribution and reparations.

The question is whether the slow elimination of government will provide for this, or if government must take positive action.

if you want redistribution and reparations (does that mean that some people will get more than others based on what happened to their ancestors?) there will have to come a day when the govt acts to take from some to give to others.

how do you envision that being done? on a merit basis or on a one man/one share basis?

Yes, only will someone be brought into the business when his output increases the output of his coworkers.


that seems to me like it would lead to modern serfdom where we are chained to our jobs. if i want my share, i have to stay at general dynamics where i was when the redistribution happens. i cant move on to another job unless they have an opening and are willing to take me as an equal. they would only do that if i were completely essential to their workforce.

if you want redistribution and reparations (does that mean that some people will get more than others based on what happened to their ancestors?) there will have to come a day when the govt acts to take from some to give to others.

how do you envision that being done? on a merit basis or on a one man/one share basis?

I tend to believe that when government rights its past wrongs, it will no longer be necessary, and against the pleadings of politicians, people will simply stop paying attention to it.

I have absolutely no problem with government revoking the ill gotten gains that it has granted in the past.

The best way, I guess, to do this would be in studying economic data and identifying inconsistencies in compensation, and then working to rectify them, probably through education and community development, and maybe even simple welfare.

Yes, he and I both see a need for redistribution and reparations.

The question is whether the slow elimination of government will provide for this, or if government must take positive action.I see. Do you think it will require positive government action?

Then please don't comment.

Fair enough. Now I've read it.

How does this essay detract from the fact that most self-styled 'Libertarians' espouse massive cuts to the state apparatus, i.e. massive tax breaks for themselves? It immediately sets out to paint the State as 'thief', and anyone not paying their taxes or stealing from government as liberators - never mind the fact that we live in democratically ratified states.

We aren't exactly living in communist societies, so an essay detailing the transition from a communist society to a libertarian one doesn't entirely seem to match up with the ideology espoused by right-of-centre economic types. It's an attack on the concept that a democratically ratified state has a right to collect taxes to pursue the goals that the electors place them there to perform.

My first comment still stands. The only people that can justify libertarianism are the same people who feel that the plight of the poor and destitute is 'their problem'. Rather than agree with government spending to help deal with these societal ills, they justify not paying those taxes as some kind of noble robin-hood kind of aspiration. It doesn't matter if the poor are poor, just as long as they can afford to keep them out of their communities.

I'm sorry, but a long essay about 'homesteading' doesn't really detract from the fact that most self-styled Libertarians are exactly what you first mentioned; defenders of current capitalism and low-government spending.

I tend to believe that when government rights its past wrongs, it will no longer be necessary, and against the pleadings of politicians, people will simply stop paying attention to it.

I have absolutely no problem with government revoking the ill gotten gains that it has granted in the past.

The best way, I guess, to do this would be in studying economic data and identifying inconsistencies in compensation, and then working to rectify them, probably through education and community development, and maybe even simple welfare.

OK. im a literal thinker so i wont understand what you are getting at without a concrete example

so, would you give actual reparations...for slavery as an example....to actual people meaning that the black guy would be more equal than i am when its all distributed?

are we only talking about nationalizing and distributing companies that have make their fortunes off of govt contracts?

would length of service in a company get me (say a 20 year worker) more than the new guy who had only worked a month?

Fair enough. Now I've read it.

How does this essay detract from the fact that most self-styled 'Libertarians' espouse massive cuts to the state apparatus, i.e. massive tax breaks for themselves? It immediately sets out to paint the State as 'thief', and anyone not paying their taxes or stealing from government as liberators - never mind the fact that we live in democratically ratified states.

We aren't exactly living in communist societies, so an essay detailing the transition from a communist society to a libertarian one doesn't entirely seem to match up with the ideology espoused by right-of-centre economic types. It's an attack on the concept that a democratically ratified state has a right to collect taxes to pursue the goals that the electors place them there to perform.

My first comment still stands. The only people that can justify libertarianism are the same people who feel that the plight of the poor and destitute is 'their problem'. Rather than agree with government spending to help deal with these societal ills, they justify not paying those taxes as some kind of noble robin-hood kind of aspiration. It doesn't matter if the poor are poor, just as long as they can afford to keep them out of their communities.

I'm sorry, but a long essay about 'homesteading' doesn't really detract from the fact that most self-styled Libertarians are exactly what you first mentioned; defenders of current capitalism and low-government spending.

I am not really interested in what "self-styled libertarians" believe. The simple fact of the matter is that all of the foremost libertarian thinkers do not agree with them. In fact, I cannot think of a single libertarian on NS who thinks that people are poor only because they fail at life. I know Corny or Myrmidosia may make that argument, but they don't even claim to be libertarian.

That is the nature of ideas, when a good one comes along, it is twisted to serve person desires. Everybody from Christians to Communists have done this.

So instead of trying to argue what might be a good idea by saying "well most who call themselves libertarians don't hold those opinions", how about you understand true libertarian ideas and then destroy their arguments from a libertarian perspective.

That way I don't need to post this article again.

I don't understand how you get this conclusion.

Because there is still inequality in dependence between the unemployed worker and his or her potential employers.

I see no good reason to believe that this inequality has all that much to do with statist interference; it seems more bound up in the character of the relationship between capital and labor, and the difficulty of ensuring effective competition with economies of scale and the possibility of coordination (explicit or implicit).

OK. im a literal thinker so i wont understand what you are getting at without a concrete example

so, would you give actual reparations...for slavery as an example....to actual people meaning that the black guy would be more equal than i am when its all distributed?

are we only talking about nationalizing and distributing companies that have make their fortunes off of govt contracts?

would length of service in a company get me (say a 20 year worker) more than the new guy who had only worked a month?

I don't personally agree with nationalisation. It may be a good idea to offer these heavily subsidized industries to their workers, but I don't think these companies would survive the lack of government assistance. Even if they would, I don't see who a group of workers who gain government advantage is that much better than a corporation who gains government advantage. The point of this article was to refute the overwhelming derogatory opinion of libertarian ideology, rather than expound upon my own views.

As for redistribution, it is a simple task of identifying economic discrepencies that are linked to arbitrary qualities, identifying the role of government in creating them, and identify the most efficient (read: least inefficient) way for government to correct them.

I agree with affirmative action, for example.

So instead of trying to argue what might be a good idea by saying "well most who call themselves libertarians don't hold those opinions", how about you understand true libertarian ideas and then destroy their arguments from a libertarian perspective.

Because I'd sooner attack people for positions that they hold, than positions that you claim they should be holding. I don't have to read pages upon pages of this stuff to think that anyone who suggests that state collecting tax is 'theft' either has a self-serving agenda, or simply doesn't live in the real world. It's like telling someone not to attack the policies of Stalin by saying 'hey, that's not real communism!' instead of just saying 'hey, you're a monster, regardless of what the ideology was supposed to be.'

Because I'd sooner attack people for positions that they hold, than positions that you claim they should be holding. I don't have to read pages upon pages of this stuff to think that anyone who suggests that state collecting tax is 'theft' either has a self-serving agenda, or simply doesn't live in the real world.

Taxation is theft. If not, it is the unjust subjugation of individual valuation. Instead of disproving that, I actually want you to follow out on the ad-hominem and identify my "self-serving agenda".

It's like telling someone not to attack the policies of Stalin by saying 'hey, that's not real communism!' instead of just saying 'hey, you're a monster, regardless of what the ideology was supposed to be.'

No, its like arguing with Stalin and saying, "How do you respond to all of these communists who completely disagree with you?"

I don't personally agree with nationalisation. It may be a good idea to offer these heavily subsidized industries to their workers, but I don't think these companies would survive the lack of government assistance. Even if they would, I don't see who a group of workers who gain government advantage is that much better than a corporation who gains government advantage. The point of this article was to refute the overwhelming derogatory opinion of libertarian ideology, rather than expound upon my own views.

As for redistribution, it is a simple task of identifying economic discrepencies that are linked to arbitrary qualities, identifying the role of government in creating them, and identify the most efficient (read: least inefficient) way for government to correct them.

I agree with affirmative action, for example.

first of all, if you think that the article doesnt CREATE an overwhelmingly derogatory opinion of libertarian ideology, you are fooling yourself. for god's sake he is advocating taking things that MY tax money paid for and letting other people "steal" them for their own use. im not going to look on that as a great idea.

i dont see affirmative action as a libertarian idea. am i that far off base in my understanding?

first of all, if you think that the article doesnt CREATE an overwhelmingly derogatory opinion of libertarian ideology, you are fooling yourself. for god's sake he is advocating taking things that MY tax money paid for and letting other people "steal" them for their own use. im not going to look on that as a great idea.

I am quite sure Rothbard would like to see you keep your tax money or have it returned to you.

i dont see affirmative action as a libertarian idea. am i that far off base in my understanding?

Most do not like it, but I see it as a form of reparations, and Rothbard specifically cast his support behind reparations.

EDIT: It seems common sense that a libertarian should oppose government action that states one should be given advantage over another of equal merit, but to do so denies the history of non-libertarian action that has so skewed our present system. Libertarianism should never be used to justify the status quo.

first of all, if you think that the article doesnt CREATE an overwhelmingly derogatory opinion of libertarian ideology, you are fooling yourself. for god's sake he is advocating taking things that MY tax money paid for and letting other people "steal" them for their own use. im not going to look on that as a great idea.

i dont see affirmative action as a libertarian idea. am i that far off base in my understanding?

Not at all - this is one of those posts that is a complete misdirection from basic philosophy. It is roughly equivalent to finding an article about how the bible says we should all be violently anti-homosexual - it in no way means that all Christians are homophobic.

Why do you think the workers musthold on to their shares? Since the shares in the factory are now their property, it can be transferred to others on the basis of mutual consent. Now, a government enterprise will more than likely be pretty sick economically. Survival is therefore contingent on the managment making the place profitable.

Some of them will probably end up being liquidated, I think that for those with the potential to be profitable, buyouts by enterpeneurs are likely, especially if they can bring the management needed to turn government "industries" into profitable enterprise.

Because there is still inequality in dependence between the unemployed worker and his or her potential employers.

I see no good reason to believe that this inequality has all that much to do with statist interference; it seems more bound up in the character of the relationship between capital and labor, and the difficulty of ensuring effective competition with economies of scale and the possibility of coordination (explicit or implicit).

Your argument doesn't support your conclusion, especially the part about illigitimate reacquisition of the property in question.

And, of course, the argument assumes that the workers will hold on to their shares (rather than sell them), or run the management themselves (rather than appointing a board, who will appoint management)

Taxation is theft. If not, it is the unjust subjugation of individual valuation. Instead of disproving that, I actually want you to follow out on the ad-hominem and identify my "self-serving agenda".

What exactly makes it unjust? The fact that you don't agree with following the will of the majority, or to spend some of your money to support the collective interests of society?

And I don't think you have a self-serving agenda. If you actually believe that tax is theft, then I put you in the camp who isn't living in the real world.

No, its like arguing with Stalin and saying, "How do you respond to all of these communists who completely disagree with you?"

Just because there are communists who disagreed with him, doesn't mean that there weren't legions of communists who did agree with him. When criticising the real-world application of communism, plenty will argue that 'that wasn't communism', as if that is an excuse for the leftist ideology. I will continue to deride libertarians regardless of what any particular camp's ideology is. It's the people who intend to put the practice into effect who concern me, not the harmless philosophers that picture a libertarian utopia that's never going to happen.

Another thing, which is being assumed without justification is that all workers at any time after the privatisation must be owners also (i.e. that all hirings must necessitate a stock issue to the new employee, and that all firings/resignations/retirements require the worker to surrender his stock to the others).

This is not in Rothbard's piece.

This is not real ownership. Those owners can transfer their ownership as they please. The initial issue of stock to the workers as part of the privatisation does not necessitate any other stock issues in and of itself. The workers may decide to have such an arrangement, or not. They may let themselves be bought out by private equity, or have a public offering.

One thing which is certain is that no government business (as he described it) will be structured to work in a free market, a restructuring will almost certainly be necessary, and those government business which refuse to restructure will die.

Why do you think the workers musthold on to their shares?

I don't believe anyone has suggested anything of the sort.

Your argument doesn't support your conclusion, especially the part about illigitimate reacquisition of the property in question.

What are you talking about?

And, of course, the argument assumes that the workers will hold on to their shares (rather than sell them), or run the management themselves (rather than appointing a board, who will appoint management)

It doesn't even touch on assuming either.

In fact, both assumptions, if anything, only play further into my point.

Another thing, which is being assumed without justification is that all workers at any time after the privatisation must be owners also (i.e. that all hirings must necessitate a stock issue to the new employee, and that all firings/resignations/retirements require the worker to surrender his stock to the others).

This is not in Rothbard's piece.

I know you like to think that you are smarter than everyone else, but in fact Vittos pointed this out explicitly back towards the beginning of the thread, I acknowledged the distinction in the posts of mine that touched on the subject, and nobody else has made any comment that assumed anything of the sort.

What are you talking about?

This:

If done on the basis of individual shares, the old imbalance of power between employer and employed returns, and with it the concentration of wealth and power, and possibly coercive institutions capable of re-acquiring illegitimate property.

I have significant issues with Libertarianism, which are the following

1) Primarily, I am of the opinion that Libertarians put too much faith in the free market without realising that the market is itself imperfect. We have market failures in the form of externalities, in the form of a lack of perfect information and imperfect industry types (monopoly, oligopoly and so on). Of course this imperfection does not benefit the populace at large.

2) I am highly concerned that under a Libertarian system, you will end up with a group of haves and have nots. The haves would have access to top quality healthcare, education and be able to insure themselves for everything under the sun. Of course, since they have the spare money, they will get significantly wealthier. The have nots on the other hand, would have no access to healthcare, no access to education and would end up in a cycle of poverty which they cannot easily get out of; not everyone has a talent for enterprise or invention.

3) I am inherently opposed to their anything goes model. Not only does it fly in the face of most people's moral beliefs, but it can also result in situation where people enjoy their "sinful" lifestyle without acknowledging the consequences of their actions; consequences that can be deadly (smoking pure methampthetamine, for example, tends to make one go crazy and more likely to go on a murderous rampage)

This:

Yes, I know what I said.

What I want to know is what your objection is... since the logical connection from argument to conclusion is pretty straightforward. Inequality in dependence leads to inequality in bargaining power, which leads to concentrations of wealth and power.

At that point, either the existing state can be subverted by the powerful, or, in an anarchist society, a new one can be formed with the resources of the powerful.

OK, then my question is this: if the people who use Libertarianism as an excuse for greed and selfishness aren't really Libertarians, what are they? The people I just described are the only Libertarians I've ever encountered.

Not at all - this is one of those posts that is a complete misdirection from basic philosophy. It is roughly equivalent to finding an article about how the bible says we should all be violently anti-homosexual - it in no way means that all Christians are homophobic.

The article is actually a quite rational response to an old objection to natural rights foundations for property: that they amount to a retroactive justification for present-day distributions that in fact have virtually nothing to do with appropriation by labor.

Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how any libertarian with that sort of justification for property rights could come to any other conclusion - assuming compensation for the original owner is impossible, for whatever reason.

Not at all - this is one of those posts that is a complete misdirection from basic philosophy. It is roughly equivalent to finding an article about how the bible says we should all be violently anti-homosexual - it in no way means that all Christians are homophobic.

Now hold on, Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess were two of the predominant modern libertarian philosophers, they didn't right articles about the bible, they wrote the bible.

What exactly makes it unjust? The fact that you don't agree with following the will of the majority, or to spend some of your money to support the collective interests of society?

This is not the place for that discussion.

If you want to know, start another thread. I have a feeling this has been argued on NSG enough times for you to know.

Just because there are communists who disagreed with him, doesn't mean that there weren't legions of communists who did agree with him. When criticising the real-world application of communism, plenty will argue that 'that wasn't communism', as if that is an excuse for the leftist ideology. I will continue to deride libertarians regardless of what any particular camp's ideology is. It's the people who intend to put the practice into effect who concern me, not the harmless philosophers that picture a libertarian utopia that's never going to happen.

What part of Rothbard's ideas of granting property rights in publicly subsidized property to the workers of those companies deserves derision?

1) Primarily, I am of the opinion that Libertarians put too much faith in the free market without realising that the market is itself imperfect. We have market failures in the form of externalities, in the form of a lack of perfect information and imperfect industry types (monopoly, oligopoly and so on). Of course this imperfection does not benefit the populace at large.

Two points:

1) The market allows individuals to react for many of these market imperfections

2) These market imperfections are the modus operandi of government economic control.

OK, then my question is this: if the people who use Libertarianism as an excuse for greed and selfishness aren't really Libertarians, what are they? The people I just described are the only Libertarians I've ever encountered.

Can we point out the libertarians of this nature that are on NS?

Now hold on, Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess were two of the predominant modern libertarian philosophers, they didn't right articles about the bible, they wrote the bible.

But most self-described libertarians don't identify with either ideologically, philosophically, or otherwise.

They are ordinary free-marketists who aren't socially conservative.

Can we point out the libertarians of this nature that are on NS?

I can think of one or two who might qualify, but naming them wouldn't be very nice.

I have significant issues with Libertarianism, which are the following

1) Primarily, I am of the opinion that Libertarians put too much faith in the free market without realising that the market is itself imperfect. We have market failures in the form of externalities, in the form of a lack of perfect information and imperfect industry types (monopoly, oligopoly and so on). Of course this imperfection does not benefit the populace at large.
Of course the free market is imperfect. Support of a free market does not mean one believes a free market is the perfect situation, merely that it is the best environment: much like a famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government, the free market is not a utopia but is superior to government control.

Edit: I would also like to point out that problems such as monopolies and many market failures are actually created by government intervention in the market.

2) I am highly concerned that under a Libertarian system, you will end up with a group of haves and have nots. The haves would have access to top quality healthcare, education and be able to insure themselves for everything under the sun. Of course, since they have the spare money, they will get significantly wealthier. The have nots on the other hand, would have no access to healthcare, no access to education and would end up in a cycle of poverty which they cannot easily get out of; not everyone has a talent for enterprise or invention.
This is the tired argument of communists against the evils of capitalism. The only way to force everyone into equality is to make everyone equally destitute. The value in a libertarian society is that if you to have talent, you can improve your situation, while those without talent have no implicit right to take what your efforts have created.

3) I am inherently opposed to their anything goes model. Not only does it fly in the face of most people's moral beliefs, but it can also result in situation where people enjoy their "sinful" lifestyle without acknowledging the consequences of their actions; consequences that can be deadly (smoking pure methampthetamine, for example, tends to make one go crazy and more likely to go on a murderous rampage)
Ah - so you want a state to impose your morality on others and prevent them from committing 'sin'. I personally find it quite repugnant that my life should be bound by onerous laws restricting my freedom because you deem my lifestyle to be sinful and against your beliefs.

But most self-described libertarians don't identify with either ideologically, philosophically, or otherwise.

They are ordinary free-marketists who aren't socially conservative.

True, but it is callous to treat libertarian thought as if it were composed only of those people's ideas.

I can point out the millions of people who are perfectly fine with the perpetuation of the corporatist/welfare state, and they may identify with socialists, but I make sure I know enough of socialism to not judge it solely on their poor ideas.

I can think of one or two who might qualify, but naming them wouldn't be very nice.

Perhaps not, but if its accurate...

Of course the free market is imperfect. Support of a free market does not mean one believes a free market is the perfect situation, merely that it is the best environment: much like a famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government, the free market is not a utopia but is superior to government control.

Edit: I would also like to point out that problems such as monopolies and many market failures are actually created by government intervention in the market.


This is the tired argument of communists against the evils of capitalism. The only way to force everyone into equality is to make everyone equally destitute. The value in a libertarian society is that if you to have talent, you can improve your situation, while those without talent have no implicit right to take what your efforts have created.


Ah - so you want a state to impose your morality on others and prevent them from committing 'sin'. I personally find it quite repugnant that my life should be bound by onerous laws restricting my freedom because you deem my lifestyle to be sinful and against your beliefs.

^what he said. :p

True, but it is callous to treat libertarian thought as if it were composed only of those people's ideas.

Of course. But they were on the extreme fringe, and to say they wrote the Bible is true only for a small group in the same area.

Not that the potential utility of this sort of logic in challenging libertarian backing for statist corporate capitalism should be underestimated.

Not at all - this is one of those posts that is a complete misdirection from basic philosophy. It is roughly equivalent to finding an article about how the bible says we should all be violently anti-homosexual - it in no way means that all Christians are homophobic.
Rothbard is the father of modern libertarianism. So the situation is the reverse.

Of course. But they were on the extreme fringe, and to say they wrote the Bible is true only for a small group in the same area.

Not that the potential utility of this sort of logic in challenging libertarian backing for statist corporate capitalism should be underestimated.

What percent of "socialists" have read Kapital?

1) Primarily, I am of the opinion that Libertarians put too much faith in the free market without realising that the market is itself imperfect. We have market failures in the form of externalities, in the form of a lack of perfect information and imperfect industry types (monopoly, oligopoly and so on). Of course this imperfection does not benefit the populace at large.

This objection comes from a lack of understanding of the free market.

Externalities only occur where there is an actual invasion of one's property by another (ranging from dumping on someone else's land, to pollution affecting it). Now, it hardly needs to be stated that libertarians consider an invasion of another's property as criminal, and therefore deserving of punishment.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=367&sortorder=articledate

As to this idea of perfect information and competition, that too comes from a misunderstanding, namely the acceptance of the mathematical theory of competition (which holds that we have competition when we have many firms, perfect information, no product or price differentiation, fixed and small amounts of market share, equal access, costless entry) Now, is that theory realistic? No, it never can be and never will be.

Competition is better understood in the sporting sense of rivalry. Contestants competing for the prize (which in the economic case is the consumer dollar). Think of it this way, if the "perfect competition" theorists were asked to judge a race, they would void the entire race if the runners didn't all run the course in the same time, all starting and finishing at the same time and remaining together all the way through. Any attempt by a runner to gain an advantage before (by superior training, or aptitude) would see him disqualified, if a runner ran out of breath the remainder would have to slow down with him.

Perfect competition theorists have misdefined "restricted entry" to mean any difficulty in getting into a market. Libertarian economists correctly define restricted entry as an actual law/regulation saying "you can't enter this industry", like the Medallions used by New York City yellow cab drivers.

2) I am highly concerned that under a Libertarian system, you will end up with a group of haves and have nots.

Whereas under socialism ...

Bottom line, the only economic system which cannot lead to haves and have-nots is a system that leads only to have-nots.

3) I am inherently opposed to their anything goes model. Not only does it fly in the face of most people's moral beliefs, but it can also result in situation where people enjoy their "sinful" lifestyle without acknowledging the consequences of their actions; consequences that can be deadly (smoking pure methampthetamine, for example, tends to make one go crazy and more likely to go on a murderous rampage)

If they do not impose the consequences on others, than it is no one's business.

What I want to know is what your objection is... since the logical connection from argument to conclusion is pretty straightforward. Inequality in dependence leads to inequality in bargaining power, which leads to concentrations of wealth and power.

It does not concentrate power, it may give the employers influence, but power is the sole reserve of the state.

What part of Rothbard's ideas of granting property rights in publicly subsidized property to the workers of those companies deserves derision?

It's not Rothbard's ideas that I was commenting on, but your assertion that this essay is THE defining characteristic of Libertarianism, when it is in fact a fractured and disparate ideology. Proclaiming that this is the 'true' definition doesn't detract from my basic distrust of the right-libertarianism that is prevalent in the US.

As to Rothbard's notion of granting property rights in publicly subsidized property to the workers, no I don't feel that idea in particular deserves derision.

What percent of "socialists" have read Kapital?

0.004138%.

power is the sole reserve of the state.

I shoot you.

Have I exercised power?

I shoot you.

Have I exercised power?

Nice nitpick. Legitimate power is the sole reserve of the state.

What percent of "socialists" have read Kapital?

0.004138%.

Quite probably right. What percentage have understood Kapital?

0.004138%.
Didn't you tell me last time that my having read Das Kapital puts me in the same group as most socialists, given that they to have read it? :p

It's not Rothbard's ideas that I was commenting on, but your assertion that this essay is THE defining characteristic of Libertarianism, when it is in fact a fractured and disparate ideology. Proclaiming that this is the 'true' definition doesn't detract from my basic distrust of the right-libertarianism that is prevalent in the US.

I just find it funny that, even though most libertarians do not take a positive position on reparations and the like, of all the libertarians I have read or conversed with on the internet and in person (and that is enough to form a generous sample), very few would disagree with the last part of Rothbard's article:

What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not "private" property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus.

Nice nitpick. Legitimate power is the sole reserve of the state.

"Legitimate" morally or legally?

Morally, this is obviously not the case: I have a right to defend myself (which involves exercising power) even if the state doesn't permit me this right.

Legally, it is indeed true that only the state has the power to legitimate power, but I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

Didn't you tell me last time that my having read Das Kapital puts me in the same group as most socialists, given that they to have read it? :p

I believe I was speaking of Marxists, and of The Communist Manifesto.

Which is a different question entirely.

Edit: The post in question. (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12391106&postcount=192)

I love having a good memory. Keeps me a step ahead of everyone else.

I believe I was speaking of Marxists, and of The Communist Manifesto.

Which is a different question entirely.
My mistake then.

I love having a good memory. Keeps me a step ahead of everyone else.
Usually that's the case for me as well, but it seems you got me this time. :)

I believe I was speaking of Marxists, and of The Communist Manifesto.

Which is a different question entirely.

Yes, I would like to meet the Marxist who hasn't read the Communist Manifesto.

Can we point out the libertarians of this nature that are on NS?

I'm not sure if to do so would violate site rules, but my point was that if people like that are, as you say, not Libertarians, what are they?

I'm not sure if to do so would violate site rules, but my point was that if people like that are, as you say, not Libertarians, what are they?
Vulgar libertarians, at best.

This is the tired argument of communists against the evils of capitalism. The only way to force everyone into equality is to make everyone equally destitute. The value in a libertarian society is that if you to have talent, you can improve your situation, while those without talent have no implicit right to take what your efforts have created.


Talent is not always rewarded as you suggest. We have very talented people in the states and yet they loose their jobs due to cheap labor abroad.

Free market is a good thing but you have to have some regulation to prevent cheating and punish it when it happens. To prevent things that are not economically feasible to do it on their own.

Take for example, pollution. The shrub did away with regulations involving pollution in Texas. He argued the free market will do it! Out of 2800 facilities that were labeled polluters; five volunteered to clean up.

"Legitimate" morally or legally?

Morally, this is obviously not the case: I have a right to defend myself (which involves exercising power) even if the state doesn't permit me this right.

Legally, it is indeed true that only the state has the power to legitimate power, but I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

So you're just nitpicking?

You're not actually disputing my overall response (that power is physical force).

Talent is not be rewarded as you suggest. We have very talented people in the states and yet they loose their jobs due to cheap labor abroad.

Free market is a good thing but you have to have some regulation to prevent cheating and punish it when it happens. To prevent things that are not economically feasible to do it on their own.

Take for example, pollution. The shrub did away with regulations involving pollution in Texas. He argued the free market will do it! Out of 2800 facilities that were labeled polluters; five volunteered to clean up.

I do wish we could objections to the free market that are not grounded in misunderstanding of the free market.

Whether or not someone is abstractly talented is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not someone's talents are sufficiently profitable to warrant the cost of employing that person.

As to pollution, the fundamental problem is not freedom, it is government. Pollution, in a libertarian society, is primarily about property rights. Now, in that situation, pollution where it does not have the prior consent of the owners of the property in question is a criminal invasion of that property.

Government causes the pollution problem in two ways, first in refusing to do its fundamental job in enforcing property rights, second in seizing ownership of property, or claiming certain types of property as under its control (like "navigable waters").

I do wish we could objections to the free market that are not grounded in misunderstanding of the free market.

Whether or not someone is abstractly talented is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not someone's talents are sufficiently profitable to warrant the cost of employing that person.


Meh.

Tell that to the libertarians then. I keep hearing "talent" and reward as the reason free market is the best of the world.

It's interesting though to listen how management is never paid enough and the workers are always overpaid.


As to pollution, the fundamental problem is not freedom, it is government. Pollution, in a libertarian society, is primarily about property rights. Now, in that situation, pollution where it does not have the prior consent of the owners of the property in question is a criminal invasion of that property.

In a realistic world, you have people that don't care about the rules and will dump whatever they feel like it because it means more profit. If they happen to have the money of say a dow chemical, then the little guy down the stream doesn't have much luck taking them on.


Government causes the pollution problem in two ways, first in refusing to do its fundamental job in enforcing property rights, second in seizing ownership of property, or claiming certain types of property as under its control (like "navigable waters").

Ah and none of those lobbyists of BUSINESS owners and PROPERTY owners comes into play now right?

So you're just nitpicking?

No. I'm trying to figure out how you can say that "power is the sole reserve of the state" without being delusional.

You're not actually disputing my overall response (that power is physical force).

You never actually said that.

And that is almost trivially false. There are plenty of ways to exercise power over someone that involve no physical force. For one obvious example, information can be a source of power.

Edit: More to the point, while frameworks of property are enforced by the physical force of the state and are thus in a certain sense its product, it is nevertheless private individuals who weild power within them. It is this power that I was referring to, and it gives the wealthy access to and influence over the state unmatched by any other class, and easily abused.

Vulgar libertarians, at best.

It may be as you say. All I know is that several people I know IRL, and more than one person here has claimed to be Libertarians and they seemed to me to be selfish pricks. They were railing against Social Security and the like, a few I've met (IRL) have even gone so far as to suggest that anyone who can't get a decent job should be allowed to die, as it's their own fault -- always. This strikes me as Social Darwinism at its worst. They also seem almost obssessively concerned with their rights, but not so much with anyone else's rights; particularly not anyone who disagrees with them on virtually any topic. They seem to be Social Conservatives across the board, and their idea of what constitutes their "rights" includes the right to say anything they want no matter how offensive with impunity. Now, you may think "that's just a Social Conservative", but I have known plenty of Social Conservatives that favor strict governmental control over people's lives, some even openly advocting dictatorship, rather than non-interference, but Libertarians seem often to advocate many of the same ideas, minus the dictatorial government. So, are the people I've come to think of as Libertarians really just Social Conservatives pretending for whatever reason to be Libertarians, or what? Also, I would ask Libertarians this: if you say you don't want to pay taxes fine, but where do you propose the services provided by government come from then? Private business? The cost to the "consumer" would likely become astronomical. Would you be happy if suddenly you couldn't afford basic services like garbage pickup? Would you like not being able to send your children to school, because there are no public schools and you can't afford a private school?

In a realistic world, you have people that don't care about the rules and will dump whatever they feel like it because it means more profit. If they happen to have the money of say a dow chemical, then the little guy down the stream doesn't have much luck taking them on.

You don't seem to get what I am saying, I am not talking about a small matter of liability, I am talking about simple crime.

Ah and none of those lobbyists of BUSINESS owners and PROPERTY owners comes into play now right?

Congratulations, you've just discovered the problem, the problem is that the government can legislate to effectively seize someone's property. I am glad you get that.

And that is almost trivially false. There are plenty of ways to exercise power over someone that involve no physical force. For one obvious example, information can be a source of power.

Once you get to that point, you are not talking about aggressing against someone, you are merely talking about influencing his actions. If you don't draw a distinction between influence and aggression, then you don't draw a distinction between a perfect world, and the world in which we live.

Edit: More to the point, while frameworks of property are enforced by the physical force of the state and are thus in a certain sense its product, it is nevertheless private individuals who weild power within them. It is this power that I was referring to, and it gives the wealthy access to and influence over the state unmatched by any other class, and easily abused.

You've pointed to one of the major problems of a non-libertarian society, the fact that the state can legislate over someone's property.

If the state can do virtually nothing except run a police force, armies, and courts. If it has no power other than that needed to defend its citizens against aggression, and enforce court rulings, then access to the state isn't going to be worth that much.

In the existing environment in which governments are virtually unrestrained, able to do anything they want, then that access matters.

You don't seem to get what I am saying, I am not talking about a small matter of liability, I am talking about simple crime.



And you miss the point. People are going to cheat the system. The government and courts would be drastically reduced in the Libertarian world.

You don't really offer a good reason for the so called "have nots" to want a Libertarian world.

Congratulations, you've just discovered the problem, the problem is that the government can legislate to effectively seize someone's property.

I didn't say that, The Black Forrest did.

Once you get to that point, you are not talking about aggressing against someone, you are merely talking about influencing his actions.

I see no absolute distinction between withholding information from someone (or threatening to divulge information about someone) to get him or her to do something for you, and pointing a gun at someone to get him or her to do something for you.

Obviously, in general the degree of power exercised is much greater in the second case, but this is not intrinsic to the methods. A person who was not concerned with getting shot might still be coerced by blackmail.

If you don't draw a distinction between influence and aggression, then you don't draw a distinction between a perfect world, and the world in which we live.

If you ignore the countless ways to exercise power independent of physical force, you will never achieve a perfect world.

Freedom is not as narrow as too many right-wing libertarians want to make it.

If the state can do virtually nothing except run a police force, armies, and courts. If it has no power other than that needed to defend its citizens against aggression, and enforce court rulings, then access to the state isn't going to be worth that much.

Just petty matters like life and death, imprisonment and freedom. Preserve the state as a coercive institution, let it keep its armies and police, and it has more than enough power to abuse.

And see how long it keeps to its limits when those with the greatest access and influence would be more than happy to see it ignore them.

And you miss the point. People are going to cheat the system. The government and courts would be drastically reduced in the Libertarian world.

Yes, they would be reduced to defending people against aggression (and as I indicated, such pollution would be aggression, morally identical to arson), you're not actually making the point you want to make.

You don't really offer a good reason for the so called "have nots" to want a Libertarian world.

You think they should be offered something for nothing?

Yes, they would be reduced to defending people against aggression (and as I indicated, such pollution would be aggression, morally identical to arson), you're not actually making the point you want to make.

If pollution is not considered aggression now. It would not be magically accepted as aggression under a Libertarian government.

For your world to work, everybody has to think the same. They won't.


You think they should be offered something for nothing?

:rolleyes: Typical libertarian.

I have constantly been at odds with many on this forum because I feel that they simply do not understand libertarianism. It is understandable because far too many libertarians treat the ideology as a way of defending present capitalism. However, I could rest easier if people understood the real political idealogy behind it, rather than the surface appearance that many people manipulate to suit their own agendas.

A worthy goal. I am tired and heavily medicated, but I enjoyed reading the piece and have a few comments.



Suppose, for example, that A steals B's horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent "private" sector and out of the "criminal" sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C's hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.

Rothbard's keystone example is flawed from the git-go. C is horse theif. C's theft of the horse does not return the hourse to the innocent private sector. Under any reasonable criminal justice system A and C are both horse theives and the horse is only in just hands in B's hands.

No explanation whatsoever is given for why C's theft of the horse would be morally superior to A's theft or why the former would be part of "innocent private sector," while the latter remains part of criminal sector.

Let us now apply our libertarian theory of property to the case of property in the hands of, or derived from, the State apparatus. The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called "taxation" and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around. Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty. In the case of the State, furthermore, the victim is not readily identifiable as B, the horse-owner. All taxpayers, all draftees, all victims of the State have been mulcted. How to go about returning all this property to the taxpayers? What proportions should be used in this terrific tangle of robbery and injustice that we have all suffered at the hands of the State? Often, the most practical method of de-statizing is simply to grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State. Of this group, the most morally deserving are the ones who are already using the property but who have no moral complicity in the State's act of aggression. These people then become the "homesteaders" of the stolen property and hence the rightful owners.

1. In a democractic country, I reject the notion that our government is just gangs of organized criminals. As a taxpayer, I reject the theory that taxation is theft. Thus, we aren't off to a good start.

2. Making the assumption that taxes are theft and applying the logic of the horse thefts, Rothbard makes a hero of anyone who liberates (steals) government property. Rothbard would "grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State." As an aside, Rothbard notes that the most worthy of such people would be those already using the property but have no moral complicity with the State.

3. Thus all state property including tax moneys are simply up for grabs, much like land was up for grabs under the Homestead Act.


But if Columbia University, what of General Dynamics? What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to "private" property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their "private" property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horsethief and the murdered [sic] must be "respected".
But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the "private property" of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute? And, further more, even if the government should decide to nationalize General Dynamics—without compensation, of course—per se and not as a prelude to redistribution to the taxpayers, this is not immoral or something to be combatted. For it would only mean that one gang of thieves—the government—would be confiscating property from another previously cooperating gang, the corporation that has lived off the government. I do not often agree with John Kenneth Galbraith, but his recent suggestion to nationalize businesses which get more than 75% of their revenue from government, or from the military, has considerable merit. Certainly it does not mean aggression against private property, and, furthermore, we could expect a considerable diminution of zeal from the military-industrial complex if much of the profits were taken out of war and plunder. And besides, it would make the American military machine less efficient, being governmental, and that is surely all to the good. But why stop at 75%? Fifty per cent seems to be a reasonable cutoff point on whether an organization is largely public or largely private.

And there is another consideration. Dow Chemical, for example, has been heavily criticized for making napalm for the U.S. military machine. The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.

Here we have moved from reallocating the "stolen" government property but also corporate property that has recieved governmet investment. Thus the Military-Industrial Complex becomes more gains to garned by homesteaders.

This brings us to Karl's point about slaves. One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land—their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation. The fact that the land remained in the hands of the lords paved the way inexorably for the Bolshevik Revolution, since the revolution that had freed the serfs remained unfinished.

The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to "reparations", reparations for the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist's call for "40 acres and a mule" to the former slaves. In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed.

Reparations for slavery have always seemed good policy to me.

Undoubtledly this will be one of the most controversial points suggested.

Alan Milchman, in the days when he was a brilliant young libertarian activist, first pointed out that libertarians had misled themselves by making their main dichotomy "government" vs. "private" with the former bad and the latter good. Government, he pointed out, is after all not a mystical entity but a group of individuals, "private" individuals if you will, acting in the manner of an organized criminal gang. But this means that there may also be "private" criminals as well as people directly affiliated with the government. What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not "private" property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus.

These categories of crime v. innocence turn on the silly horse theft analogy.

Also, I would ask Libertarians this: if you say you don't want to pay taxes fine, but where do you propose the services provided by government come from then?


Exactly the same place as before, just with new spiffy rhetoric. Under the new order, the non-super-rich would be forced to pay "fees/rent" to the "service provider/landlord" rather than be forced to pay "taxes" to the "state." See how completely different that is?

(the "state" and the "private sector" are just two sometimes competing but more often colluding groups of super-rich who employ varying methods ["police and military" and "coercive exploitation of resource scarcity," respectively] in order to make the masses of humanity dependent upon them. "Libertarians" are just advocates for, and/or members of, the "private sector" grouping who take the more competitive view.)


Would you like not being able to send your children to school, because there are no public schools and you can't afford a private school?

Considering the fact that uneducated masses tend to be disorganized and complacent masses, such is actually a feature and not a bug...

Exactly the same place as before, just with new spiffy rhetoric. Under the new order, the non-super-rich would have to pay "rent" to the "landlord" rather than pay "taxes" to the "state" See, how completely different that is?

(the "state" and the "private sector" are just two sometimes competing but more often colluding groups of super-rich who employ varying methods ["police and military" and "coercive exploitation of resource scarcity," respectively] in order to make the masses of humanity dependent upon them.)



Considering the fact that uneducated masses tend to be disorganized and complacent masses, such is actually a feature, not a bug...



Yay Feudalism! :D:headbang:

If pollution is not considered aggression now. It would not be magically accepted as aggression under a Libertarian government.

Who said anything about magical? I thought I made this clear, under a libertarian system of ethics and government, if your property is damaged by pollution, your rights have been violated, the one who polluted is therefore a criminal.

For your world to work, everybody has to think the same. They won't.

No, doesn't follow at all.

Typical libertarian.

All the system that are supposed to appeal to the "have nots" are based on the idea that they can be given something without cost.

Yay Fuedalism! :D:headbang:

At least the new feudalists are liberal enough to let one smoke all the crack one wants between 19 hour shifts of making someone else fabulously rich. At least until the layoffs (i.e. cost cutting [i.e. the Board votes itself a pay raise]) start.

Who said anything about magical? I thought I made this clear, under a libertarian system of ethics and government, if your property is damaged by pollution, your rights have been violated, the one who polluted is therefore a criminal.

So the little guy has a chance against the millionaire? Not buying it.


No, doesn't follow at all.

There is the problem and why you will NEVER see a libertarian country.

All the system that are supposed to appeal to the "have nots" are based on the idea that they can be given something without cost.

Yup everybody wants a handout. Very Republican of you.

Also, I would ask Libertarians this: if you say you don't want to pay taxes fine, but where do you propose the services provided by government come from then? Private business?
the town my dad used to live in had volunteer police officers and volunteer fire department, didn't seem too bad.
The cost to the "consumer" would likely become astronomical.
based on what?

Would you be happy if suddenly you couldn't afford basic services like garbage pickup?
I am sure I would deal with it.

Would you like not being able to send your children to school, because there are no public schools and you can't afford a private school?
I seem to be getting along fine not sending my kids to public school.

the town my dad used to live in had volunteer police officers and volunteer fire department, didn't seem too bad.


That's fine for a small town, but what about NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc?


based on what?
Based on the idea of maximizing profit.


I am sure I would deal with it.
Let's hope so.


I seem to be getting along fine not sending my kids to public school.

Home schooling isn't a viable option for everyone.

Not at all - this is one of those posts that is a complete misdirection from basic philosophy. It is roughly equivalent to finding an article about how the bible says we should all be violently anti-homosexual - it in no way means that all Christians are homophobic.

noooooo
vittos put it up as an example of how libertarianism isnt as awful as we think it is. he says that we only get a skewed view of it here (refrence neesika's first post about guns) and that if we read THIS we will see that its quite different.

if the same was done with a christian thread posting some horrid anti-gay stuff, i would say the same thing--that if you think this makes your philosophy look better you are kidding yourself.

now if YOU want to put up some quotes from libertarian big thinkers that show libertarianism in a good light, go for it. we'll see if you can.

That's fine for a small town, but what about NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc?
don't know, guess they will figure it out. I am not an anarchist though, I believe in some government, just not as much as we have now.

Based on the idea of maximizing profit.
and you assume there wouldn't be competition?


Let's hope so.
I know so.


Home schooling isn't a viable option for everyone.
nope. I am an evil libertarian though and I don't really care about anyone else.

It's not Rothbard's ideas that I was commenting on, but your assertion that this essay is THE defining characteristic of Libertarianism, when it is in fact a fractured and disparate ideology. Proclaiming that this is the 'true' definition doesn't detract from my basic distrust of the right-libertarianism that is prevalent in the US.

As to Rothbard's notion of granting property rights in publicly subsidized property to the workers, no I don't feel that idea in particular deserves derision.

*I* do.

why should the workers get the benefit of MY tax money? if it is so odious that these companies continue to take government contracts then there should be no more government contracts for them to take. taking legal profit from a legal contract is not a good reason to take the company from the stockholders and give it to someone else.

if for some reason i cannot come up with it is decided that with a new regime all govt contracts should be paid back to the beginning of tax-spending time, then companies should be required to do so to the best of their abilities (even, i suppose, to bankruptcy) and if there is anything left after doing so, the stockholders should retain ownership of it.

don't know, guess they will figure it out. I am not an anarchist though, I believe in some government, just not as much as we have now.

OK, although I suspect the logistics of such a setup would be a nightmare, I'll concede that I don't know that for a certainty, as I don't know exactly what would be involved.


and you assume there wouldn't be competition?
I assume no such thing.



I know so.
OK



nope. I am an evil libertarian though and I don't really care about anyone else.

That was a bit snide, and it's beneath you. I'm not attacking you, Smunkee.

This is the tired argument of communists against the evils of capitalism. The only way to force everyone into equality is to make everyone equally destitute.If you're going to complain about tired arguments, you could at least not trot out that tired cliche.

What percent of "socialists" have read Kapital?To be fair, Marx didn't actually invent the concept of socialism and communism.

Yes, I would like to meet the Marxist who hasn't read the Communist Manifesto.Oh, you meant Marxists.

Did Rothbard invent the concept of libertarianism?

OK, although I suspect the logistics of such a setup would be a nightmare, I'll concede that I don't know that for a certainty, as I don't know exactly what would be involved.
I am of the "government should do for the people what the people can't do for themselves" type of philosophy so I mean, things like basic infrastructure are probably a govt. thing, roads, police, fire department, courts, defense.... etc. I don't have a problem paying taxes for those types of things.

As far as the school issue, charter schools sponsored by companies seem to be doing fine around here.


That was a bit snide, and it's beneath you. I'm not attacking you, Smunkee.
I wasn't attacking you either. I said I was evil.

I am of the "government should do for the people what the people can't do for themselves" type of philosophy so I mean, things like basic infrastructure are probably a govt. thing, roads, police, fire department, courts, defense.... etc. I don't have a problem paying taxes for those types of things.

this is, to me, the difference between libertarianism and anarchism on a practical level (given that i support neither one and that they are rather different from each other)

you can take a few of the ideas of libertarianism and use them as a guide to how you feel about goverment. "government should be as small as possible and stay out of people's lives as much as possible."

you can support THAT kind of idea without ever touching the core notions put forth by the NUTZ that are the big thinkers of libertarianism.

not so possible with anarchism where a little bit goes nowhere.

although if i had to choose between the 2, at least anarchism has something better as its goal. libertarianism doesnt.


As far as the school issue, charter schools sponsored by companies seem to be doing fine around here.


arent charter schools state schools run in a different way? as opposed to a private school subsidized by a company.

arent charter schools state schools run in a different way? as opposed to a private school subsidized by a company.
I am not really sure how the relationship around here works, I know my friend is a principle of one and they don't get govt. money only from the companies that support the school, I think they kinda count like private schools.

I am not really sure how the relationship around here works, I know my friend is a principle of one and they don't get govt. money only from the companies that support the school, I think they kinda count like private schools.

hmmm

i thought charter schools were a federal govt mandate of some kind.

like id know

here they are all state schools run by parent groups, sometimes helped by corporations. they are exempt from most of the mandates (like 5 hours of environmental education per year) that the rest of public schools have to find a way to deal with.

why arent yours just called private schools? do the kids pay to go to them or are all the costs picked up by some company?

hmmm

i thought charter schools were a federal govt mandate of some kind.

like id know

here they are all state schools run by parent groups, sometimes helped by corporations. they are exempt from most of the mandates (like 5 hours of environmental education per year) that the rest of public schools have to find a way to deal with.

why arent yours just called private schools? do the kids pay to go to them or are all the costs picked up by some company?

I think it's maybe not a charter school I am thinking of..... the tuition is picked up by a few companies and the kids can go for free and they have to accept anyone, priority given to neighborhood kids, but they aren't under a lot of the rules the public schools are......maybe it's a private school......I know my kids can go next year if I wanted them to, even if I only sent them for P.E.

I just find it funny that, even though most libertarians do not take a positive position on reparations and the like, of all the libertarians I have read or conversed with on the internet and in person (and that is enough to form a generous sample), very few would disagree with the last part of Rothbard's article:

"What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not "private" property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus. "

Well, it's kind of a meaningless empty statement isn't it? Who wouldn't support justive over injustice, non-criminal property over 'criminal property'. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't agree with that. However, when you set your premise that 'tax is theft', anything purchased by tax or funded by tax can be considered 'criminal', which is of course ridiculous. The 'crime' in this statement, is lawfully legislated tax collection, which the majority endorse (if are not always happy about.)

I think it's maybe not a charter school I am thinking of..... the tuition is picked up by a few companies and the kids can go for free and they have to accept anyone, priority given to neighborhood kids, but they aren't under a lot of the rules the public schools are......maybe it's a private school......I know my kids can go next year if I wanted them to, even if I only sent them for P.E.

what do the companies get out of it? schools are very expensive eh?

what do the companies get out of it? schools are very expensive eh?

advertising? I am not really sure.....I know my husband's company sponsors one of them and the employees volunteer there for some sort of community service requirement thingy.....it's tied to their raises, like if you don't do some sort of community service volunteer thing you might not get one.

*I* do.

why should the workers get the benefit of MY tax money? if it is so odious that these companies continue to take government contracts then there should be no more government contracts for them to take. taking legal profit from a legal contract is not a good reason to take the company from the stockholders and give it to someone else.

if for some reason i cannot come up with it is decided that with a new regime all govt contracts should be paid back to the beginning of tax-spending time, then companies should be required to do so to the best of their abilities (even, i suppose, to bankruptcy) and if there is anything left after doing so, the stockholders should retain ownership of it.

I don't particularly endorse it either. However we've already used our tax to the benefit of the workers. If we're going to be switching to a society that privatizes government services, I feel we'd be better served by creating mutualist enterprises out of them, rather then liquidate them and spread small amounts back to each individual across the nation. I'd sooner support notions that promote stablity, then try to establish how much tax was spent by each individual and try to determine a refund.

I don't particularly endorse it either. However we've already used our tax to the benefit of the workers. If we're going to be switching to a society that privatizes government services, I feel we'd be better served by creating mutualist enterprises out of them, rather then liquidate them and spread small amounts back to each individual across the nation. I'd sooner support notions that promote stablity, then try to establish how much tax was spent by each individual and try to determine a refund.

it would be a huge refund if we went back to all taxes collected and paid out.

its a stupid idea. IF i were to support this notion (which i never would since its nutz) it would only be "from this day forward". it wouldnt be just to penalize anyone for doing legal business with the govt in the past.

any govt enterprise--the post office perhaps--would be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds refunded to the people.

it would be a huge refund if we went back to all taxes collected and paid out.

its a stupid idea. IF i were to support this notion (which i never would since its nutz) it would only be "from this day forward". it wouldnt be just to penalize anyone for doing legal business with the govt in the past.

any govt enterprise--the post office perhaps--would be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds refunded to the people.

Your version would be much more manageable, that's for sure. I just don't have an objection to a degree of worker ownership of production. Such a notion would most likely create a massive backlash from anyone working in the private sector, so undoubtedly your version makes a lot more sense.

Fortunately, I don't see such silliness ever taking place in our lifetimes (with the exception of some privatization.)

Rothbard's keystone example is flawed from the git-go. C is horse theif. C's theft of the horse does not return the hourse to the innocent private sector. Under any reasonable criminal justice system A and C are both horse theives and the horse is only in just hands in B's hands.

No explanation whatsoever is given for why C's theft of the horse would be morally superior to A's theft or why the former would be part of "innocent private sector," while the latter remains part of criminal sector.

I wouldn't call it a keystone example per se, rather a flawed analogy.

I agree with you that anyone in the chain of stealing is unjust. I think perhaps if the person stumbles upon the horse and then seeks out the original owner, he could become the just owner of the horse.

Where his analogy flaws is that it says absolutely nothing of the homesteading principle and even more importantly abandons the non-aggression principle.

In this sense, we should consider the factory workers gaining the privatized factory as the keystone example.

1. In a democractic country, I reject the notion that our government is just gangs of organized criminals. As a taxpayer, I reject the theory that taxation is theft. Thus, we aren't off to a good start.

It entirely depends on where we are coming from, and I think you are being fleeced. I don't consider our democracy to be a government built by the people, rather a government placed upon the people. When we look at the progress of political organization, each successive form has been a version of the previous with a few more concessions to the people. As it is, our present democracy is simply that government which the powers that be can get away with.

I think we can agree that some forms of taxation can be considered theft, for example, the likely $1000+ you have taken from you per year to fund mass murder around the globe. Would you pay this if you had the choice?

2. Making the assumption that taxes are theft and applying the logic of the horse thefts, Rothbard makes a hero of anyone who liberates (steals) government property. Rothbard would "grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State." As an aside, Rothbard notes that the most worthy of such people would be those already using the property but have no moral complicity with the State.

This was the point of the horse analogy. Since it cannot be determined who is the rightful owner of government property, it resorts to its natural common state (indeed it is considered "common" property as is), and therefore resorts to whoever is homesteading it. The difference between this and the horse analogy is the nonaggression principle, horse theif C initiates a violent act to obtain the horse, while the workers simply claim the property by their labor.

Here we have moved from reallocating the "stolen" government property but also corporate property that has recieved governmet investment. Thus the Military-Industrial Complex becomes more gains to garned by homesteaders.

I am all for that.

Reparations for slavery have always seemed good policy to me.

Undoubtledly this will be one of the most controversial points suggested.

Yes, that is an uphill battle as far as convincing libertarians goes. I think that it actually comes naturally to the libertarian as he applies his ideas more thoroughly and retroactively.

It also helps to understand the views of the new left.

These categories of crime v. innocence turn on the silly horse theft analogy.

I agree completely.

This wasn't so much an attempt to explain my own position or even the right position, rather to turn the idea of the self-interested libertarian on its head.

If the father of modern libertarianism (he did help found the Libertarian Party and wrote its original manifesto), supports something so similar to socialism, something that takes his own tax money and considers it abandoned to factory workers, how can we take libertarianism to be inherently selfish?

EDIT: That was also, in my opinion, the best post on this thread in terms of directly confronting the topic in an intelligent and reasonable way. I don't see many of the posts you make as I generally stick to different issues, but it appears your repuation is deserved.

To be fair, Marx didn't actually invent the concept of socialism and communism.

Oh, you meant Marxists.

Did Rothbard invent the concept of libertarianism?

No, I meant socialists, when I mentioned Marxists it was only in off-hand reference to Soheran's post.

Rothbard did not invent libertarianism as Marx didn't invent socialism.

The 'crime' in this statement, is lawfully legislated tax collection, which the majority endorse (if are not always happy about.)

Tax is theft is a moral statement, and as any politically or legally minded person can tell you law does not make right.

No, I meant socialists, when I mentioned Marxists it was only in off-hand reference to Soheran's post.

Rothbard did not invent libertarianism as Marx didn't invent socialism.Oh, I see. It was a minor point anyway, no nevermind.

So, do you think it would require postive government action to return the factories to the workers, or would it come from the slow shrinking of the government?

Oh, I see. It was a minor point anyway, no nevermind.

So, do you think it would require postive government action to return the factories to the workers, or would it come from the slow shrinking of the government?

Both, as I said before.

And communists aren't communists, democrats are just next to republicans, Labour isn't that left wing. Yeah, we've heard this same BS before.

And communists aren't communists, democrats are just next to republicans, Labour isn't that left wing. Yeah, we've heard this same BS before.

Now who can argue with that?!

Both, as I said before.You did? I must have missed it then.

Do you have a specific idea of what types of situations would be more likely to require government interference, and which types would be likely to happen without interference?

You did? I must have missed it then.

Do you have a specific idea of what types of situations would be more likely to require government interference, and which types would be likely to happen without interference?

Not really, I have some specific ideas, but in general I think it is a job for empirical studies.

Of course the free market is imperfect. Support of a free market does not mean one believes a free market is the perfect situation, merely that it is the best environment: much like a famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government, the free market is not a utopia but is superior to government control.

Edit: I would also like to point out that problems such as monopolies and many market failures are actually created by government intervention in the market.

Some monopolies may be created by government intervention in the market, but not all of them. I take for example Standard Oil, a monopoly not created by government intervention in the market, but by the determination of John D. Rockefeller to have market control - it took state intervention to break up Standard Oil into seven companies. Even then, they have merged over the years and the Seven Sisters are now four.

Personally I believe a free-market solution is ideal, however, my ideal situation would be free-market with limited government intervention to stop its worst excesses.

This is the tired argument of communists against the evils of capitalism. The only way to force everyone into equality is to make everyone equally destitute. The value in a libertarian society is that if you to have talent, you can improve your situation, while those without talent have no implicit right to take what your efforts have created.

I assure you, I am no Communist, I do not believe that everyone should be completely equal; however, I do believe that one should at least have an opportunity to succeed in life. Not everyone has inventing talent, or musical talent, or sporting talent and therefore some people need an education to get by; and I highly doubt that a majority of the population would get an education if it cost them $10k a year for schooling and $25k a year for university - the only thing that would happen as a result is that prices for university educated professionals would go through the roof

Ah - so you want a state to impose your morality on others and prevent them from committing 'sin'. I personally find it quite repugnant that my life should be bound by onerous laws restricting my freedom because you deem my lifestyle to be sinful and against your beliefs.

I am also protecting my own backside. If even 10% of the population were pure methampthetamine addicts, that would be enough to make life very nasty - you need to look up the online version of the Merck Manual to see what that does to you - it makes people go crazy.

This objection comes from a lack of understanding of the free market.

Externalities only occur where there is an actual invasion of one's property by another (ranging from dumping on someone else's land, to pollution affecting it). Now, it hardly needs to be stated that libertarians consider an invasion of another's property as criminal, and therefore deserving of punishment.

Errr; that would be negative externalities. You also have positive externalities. For example, take an electric rail network that carries 20,000 people a day - alright, you first of all have the reduced pollution and how would that be rewarded? You also have the reduced congestion, how would that be rewarded? You even have more efficient use of land. All I have heard from Libertarians so far (in general) is close down the network and charge people for using the roads.

Also, I do not expect that we can achieve perfect competition, but at the very least, we should attempt to avoid having monopolies. I do not have a problem with oligopolies or monopolistic competition, as they are realistic options with benefits for the consumer.