NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been reading quite a few posts on this recently and I was wondering, what IS liberatrianism. I used to assume that it was just american liberals with more moderate views. But I have been hearing some strong bashing of it from liberals. So what is it and what does it stand for. Also how is it different from liberalism(of the american kind).

Libritarians? People who live in libraries? *giggle*

Libertarianism, (in the definition that was co-opted from the original definition and is now used most commonly) is an extreme form of right-wing capitalism. It's not quite right-anarchism, but it's fairly close.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism).

I wonder if someone ever came up with Libertinism. I'd be all for it :D

Hey hey give me a break that is a hard thing to spell, and its not like I canchange my title.

I wonder if someone ever came up with Libertinism. I'd be all for it :D

Libertarianism is generally defined here as free market capitalists who are also socially liberal. But it can also refer to left-libertarianism/libertarian socialism.

I'd call myself a free-market libertarian, as opposed to an anarcho-capitalist. I'd prefer a nightwatchman-type minimal state, with any expansion beyond that role only possible on a purely voluntary basis, that is with such programs being funded by taxpayers' voluntary donations, not compulsory taxes.

Although I use that word a lot, I think it should be completely removed from the English language, since it's too ambiguous and lumps too many different theories together.

Libertarianism is a brilliant idea. A political approach that can never be defeated because no matter how many times it is torn apart and demonstrated to be a lot of horsecrap the next guy can go "Hey, that was Libertarianism v456. That's clearly stupid! Listen, my Libertarianism v378 has all the answers!"

its like pogo sticks for college students (a fad)

don't you want to find lady liberty tied up under your tree?

Libertarianism is civilized anarchy. It is the idea that you should be able to do just about anything you want except go around killing people, the exception to that rule being killing in self-defense. An ideal libertarian world would be populated mostly by industrious gun-toting hippies because libertarians generally promote a free market, drugs, sex, gambling, free expression, guns, and loathe government and law and order. If you haven't guessed already such a world would be somewhat improbable at the least.

"Hey, that was Libertarianism v456. That's clearly stupid! Listen, my Libertarianism v378 has all the answers!"
My, my, someone's cranky today.

Anarcho-capitalism =/= libertarianism. That's a fact. The two are seperate ideologies with seperate goals. If you think you have an argument which defeats one, that doesn't imply anything about the other, unless you clearly show it to be so.

Poster X may be a neolibertarian proto-objectivist, but his theories are completely off the wall. I prefer my own right-libertarian classic socio-primitivism, which completely explains all the loopholes in Poster X's theory. Those neolibertarian proto-objectivists are just a bunch of obnoxious splitters. Right-libertarian classic socio-primitivism is totally the way to go. Sure, it may look indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalist paleo-libertarianism, but there are all these important differences!!!11

Gawd.

I'm a Libertarian so I'll just tell you what I believe since putting official definitions aside here's what I hear from other Libertarians.

Libertarians believe that the Government is a necessary evil but should be kept to a minimum.

Libertarians believe that individual freedom is paramount.

For some specifics:

Libertarians bristle at taxation. Partly because it promotes bigger government but also because taxation is considered a form of action taken against citizens by Government. If you don't pay taxes, you will be imprisoned. That's force.

Libertarians tend to be suspicious of "crime" where ther's no discernible victim. (For example: smoking a joint, driving your car at 80 mph, consenting adults having sex where money is exchanged) Some of that may or may not be considered moral, but Government has no business criminalizing things based on morality/

Libertarians oppose Socialism because it hands over more power to Government, and the more power your government has, the less liberty you have.

Libertarians tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.

Libertarians are generally evenly divided on the issue of abortion. Some see it as killing a life and thus equivalent to murder, which is a criminal act, some see it as an issue of government power over a woman's body.

Poster X may be a neolibertarian proto-objectivist, but his theories are completely off the wall. I prefer my own right-libertarian classic socio-primitivism, which completely explains all the loopholes in Poster X's theory. Those neolibertarian proto-objectivists are just a bunch of obnoxious splitters. Right-libertarian classic socio-primitivism is totally the way to go. Sure, it may look indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalist paleo-libertarianism, but there are all these important differences!!!11

if you're ideologically dogmatic, then yes they are. especially if you're a Randroid. *shudder*

not to mention again, libertarianism != anarchism. say what you want about other flavors of libertarianism, libertarianism does not equate to outright anarchism.

It is the idea that you should be able to do just about anything you want except go around killing people

or stop paying taxes altogether because people are still afraid of the ebil ebil murderers who wait at our very borders for the time when the police go home!

I have been reading quite a few posts on this recently and I was wondering, what IS liberatrianism. I used to assume that it was just american liberals with more moderate views. But I have been hearing some strong bashing of it from liberals. So what is it and what does it stand for. Also how is it different from liberalism(of the american kind).

Speaking as a Libertarian: Libertarians are classical liberals, which means they are more liberal then liberals. They share part of their beliefs with liberals (drugs, often prostitution), and part with conservatives (anti-gun control, anti-welfare).

They basically want a smaller government. The main reason they are often hated by the left is that they are for less regulation of the economy. They are the modern incarnation of ideas of the Democratic-Republican party ( the literal incarnation, though it has changed much, is the Democratic party).

I have been reading quite a few posts on this recently and I was wondering, what IS liberatrianism. I used to assume that it was just american liberals with more moderate views. But I have been hearing some strong bashing of it from liberals. So what is it and what does it stand for. Also how is it different from liberalism(of the american kind).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29

Or, as applied to political ideology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism is civilized anarchy. It is the idea that you should be able to do just about anything you want except go around killing people, the exception to that rule being killing in self-defense. An ideal libertarian world would be populated mostly by industrious gun-toting hippies because libertarians generally promote a free market, drugs, sex, gambling, free expression, guns, and loathe government and law and order. If you haven't guessed already such a world would be somewhat improbable at the least.

We don't promote drugs, sex, and gambling. We merely don't think such activities should be illegal. I'm a Libertarian, yet I plan to refrain from sex before I'm married, and I would never do drugs. I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I don't do pot. Coffee is the limit here.

I'm also a big fan of law & order, just with fewer laws.

As a matter of fact, I'm for the death-sentence. That is most certainly supporting law & order.

Libertarians are classical liberals

except where they reject the strands of classical liberal thought that are the clear forerunners of the welfare state compromise

except where they reject the strands of classical liberal thought that are the clear forerunners of the welfare state compromise

How can you have a welfare state with low taxes? The Articles of Confederation (written by classical liberals) had to be scrapped because taxes we optional. Really, now.

I'll tell you what Libertarians are.

Horrible, blood sucking monsters, who prey on the poor and homeless for their lavish lifestyles. They're evil, evil, evil!

Jk lol

My brother used to be Libertarian, but then he took some economics classes and realized, "Y'know, it WAS big government spending that ended the depression..."

I also used to be Libertarian, but then I started taking the Political Compass test bi-weekly. I've been shifting more left, and more down. I'm inching closer and closer to Anarpy!

What are libritarians?I rather wonder who those folks are who can't spell their own thread titles right...

I'm a Libertarian, yet I plan to refrain from sex before I'm married, and I would never do drugs. I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I don't do pot. Coffee is the limit here

why no sex before marriage (not meaning to break a train of thought but this has always confused me as to why)

I'm also a big fan of law & order, just with fewer laws.

people who proclaim there love for law and order scare me, please explain what you mean by this

*gets ready to have that debate which leaves me feeling so smart*

'm inching closer and closer to Anarpy!

a government based on anal :confused:

a government based on anal
No, it's like Anarchy, but with a government. It's still anarchy, though.

How can you have a welfare state with low taxes? The Articles of Confederation (written by classical liberals) had to be scrapped because taxes we optional. Really, now.

low taxes are not themselves a fundamental doctrine of classical liberalism. and it worries me that i'm having to explain that.

They arrange the books and help you find the materials you are looking for.

why no sex before marriage (not meaning to break a train of thought but this has always confused me as to why)

Because if I did, then once I was married I'd feel imprisoned, not being able to have sex with others. If I refrain then I might have a leg-up on avoiding the temptation of adultery.

people who proclaim there love for law and order scare me, please explain what you mean by this

*gets ready to have that debate which leaves me feeling so smart*


I mean I would love better funding for the police, and harsher penalties for criminals.

low taxes are not themselves a fundamental doctrine of classical liberalism. and it worries me that i'm having to explain that.

Yes they, um, are. I just sited The Article of Confederation, written by classical liberals. It made taxes voluntary. Although that itself didn't work, it shows that the founding fathers were for low taxes...even none at all if you didn't feel like paying them. Not modern, voluntary, but truly voluntary. There was no penalty for not paying taxes.

They arrange the books and help you find the materials you are looking for.

that would be librartarians. often confused with the astrological libratarians, and the spanish-speaking libretarians.

libritarians are people who ideologically support chinese immigrantion to the uk.

Yes they, um, are. I just sited The Article of Confederation, written by classical liberals. It made taxes voluntary. Although that itself didn't work, it shows that the founding fathers were for low taxes...even none at all if you didn't feel like paying them. Not modern, voluntary, but truly voluntary. There was no penalty for not paying taxes.

*face/palm*

true or false, you would count thomas paine (author of "common sense") as a classical liberal?

I just sited The Article of Confederation, written by classical liberals. It made taxes voluntary.

Federal taxes.

The Articles of Confederation heavily restricted the power of the central government. Not of government per se.

Federal taxes.

The Articles of Confederation heavily restricted the power of the central government. Not of government per se.

If a Libertarian were president, for some reason I don't see him restricting state governments. But anyway, of course a federal paper won't restrict state government, because then that would give the federal government the power to oppress them, wouldn't it?

Because if I did, then once I was married I'd feel imprisoned, not being able to have sex with others. If I refrain then I might have a leg-up on avoiding the temptation of adultery.

so your scared of sex outside of marriage...

I mean I would love better funding for the police, and harsher penalties for criminals.

why must I always point to the 1800's?

or better yet:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stategraph99.gif

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/euusdeter.GIF

I did have a much better graph but I've lost it :(:(

If a Libertarian were president, for some reason I don't see him restricting state governments.

Maybe, but there are two different principles at play here.

1. We should not have a strong central government, but instead should protect the autonomy of more local and decentralized governments closer to the people. Therefore, we should deny the federal government the power to compel taxes... or at least we should restrict it very heavily.

2. Taxation is an intrinsic evil. Therefore, we should deny the federal government (and all governments) the power to compel taxes... or at least we should restrict it very heavily.

The first is the ideology of the Articles of Confederation. The second is the ideology of modern libertarianism.

Classical liberal anti-tax sentiment rarely extended to more than a requirement of consent--not individual consent, as in making taxes voluntary, but collective consent through elected legislative bodies.

*face/palm*

true or false, you would count thomas paine (author of "common sense") as a classical liberal?

In many ways, yes. He couldn't really be put in box, but in many ways, yes.

so your scared of sex outside of marriage...

Not in the least. I loudly proclaim that prostitution should be legalized, and should be recognized as a viable job.

why must I always point to the 1800's?


Are you saying the death penalty has to do with crime rates? The only reason I support the death penalty is so detrimental members don't drag on society. I know that other nations without the death penalty have a lower crime rate, but then again they're just that: other nations. America is a wee different. Just like I know gun-control works in in other nations, I just don't think it will work so well in America.

To respond to one of your statements. If we allowed people to go 80mph then people would die, in car wrecks or in pedestrian run-overs. There is a good reason for speed limits.

One must site Germany here. Of course, that's Germany....

Gawd.

I'm a Libertarian so I'll just tell you what I believe since putting official definitions aside here's what I hear from other Libertarians.

Libertarians believe that the Government is a necessary evil but should be kept to a minimum.

Libertarians believe that individual freedom is paramount.

For some specifics:

Libertarians bristle at taxation. Partly because it promotes bigger government but also because taxation is considered a form of action taken against citizens by Government. If you don't pay taxes, you will be imprisoned. That's force.

Libertarians tend to be suspicious of "crime" where ther's no discernible victim. (For example: smoking a joint, driving your car at 80 mph, consenting adults having sex where money is exchanged) Some of that may or may not be considered moral, but Government has no business criminalizing things based on morality/

Libertarians oppose Socialism because it hands over more power to Government, and the more power your government has, the less liberty you have.

Libertarians tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.

Libertarians are generally evenly divided on the issue of abortion. Some see it as killing a life and thus equivalent to murder, which is a criminal act, some see it as an issue of government power over a woman's body.

To respond to one of your statements. If we allowed people to go 80mph then people would die, in car wrecks or in pedestrian run-overs. There is a good reason for speed limits.

Maybe, but there are two different principles at play here.

1. We should not have a strong central government, but instead should protect the autonomy of more local and decentralized governments closer to the people. Therefore, we should deny the federal government the power to compel taxes... or at least we should restrict it very heavily.

2. Taxation is an intrinsic evil. Therefore, we should deny the federal government (and all governments) the power to compel taxes... or at least we should restrict it very heavily.

The first is the ideology of the Articles of Confederation. The second is the ideology of modern libertarianism.

Classical liberal anti-tax sentiment rarely extended to more than a requirement of consent--not individual consent, as in making taxes voluntary, but collective consent through elected legislative bodies.

Hmm, Well I do not think states governments should be allowed to tax too much. But then again I think they are putting the money to the wrong uses. If they put it to correct use, they would not need such inordinate financial sacrifice from the populace.

Not in the least. I loudly proclaim that prostitution should be legalized, and should be recognized as a viable job.

which proves?

Are you saying the death penalty has to do with crime rates?

its about harsh punishment, you see in the good old days people got hung for stealing bread

didn't work and it wasn't just an idea someone had one day it was a gradual process of increasing punishment hoping that it actually does deter crime (which it proves doesn't especially compared with more modern ideas such as evil commie welfare)

People who believe in giving people any freedom they want, so long as they can back it up with a quote from a book which suggests that it's a good idea are Libritarians.

In many ways, yes. He couldn't really be put in box, but in many ways, yes.

ok, now have you ever examined his work, "agrarian justice"?

Maybe, but there are two different principles at play here.

1. We should not have a strong central government, but instead should protect the autonomy of more local and decentralized governments closer to the people. Therefore, we should deny the federal government the power to compel taxes... or at least we should restrict it very heavily.

2. Taxation is an intrinsic evil. Therefore, we should deny the federal government (and all governments) the power to compel taxes... or at least we should restrict it very heavily.

The first is the ideology of the Articles of Confederation. The second is the ideology of modern libertarianism.

does it ever seem to you that the active libert identification with classical liberalism is yet another bit of obfuscation and deliberate introduction of confusion on their part?

does it ever seem to you that the active libert identification with classical liberalism is yet another bit of obfuscation and deliberate introduction of confusion on their part?

Well, I don't know how "deliberate" it is, but it's another one of their slogans that at first glance might have a ring of plausibility but breaks down under closer examination.

There are two kinds of libertarians: Left-libertarians and right-libertarians, neither of which considers the other libertarian.

Well, I don't know how "deliberate" it is, but it's another one of their slogans that at first glance might have a ring of plausibility but breaks down under closer examination.

i say deliberate because such things happen with incredible regularity and frequency, and it seems like the more reasonable explanation why at this point

There are two kinds of libertarians: Left-libertarians and right-libertarians, neither of which considers the other libertarian.

There is a beautiful middle that wishes each side would get along and recognize their differences are tiny.

There is a beautiful middle that wishes each side would get along and recognize their differences are tiny.

To the contrary, the more I consider it the more I think it is the similarities that are superficial.

Both call themselves "libertarian"... but my notion of freedom is so radically distinct from those commonly expressed by right-wing libertarians that this means very little.

To the contrary, the more I consider it the more I think it is the similarities that are superficial.

Both call themselves "libertarian"... but my notion of freedom is so radically distinct from those commonly expressed by right-wing libertarians that this means very little.

I doubt it, but prove your case.

I doubt it, but prove your case.

Most right-wing libertarians rely on a notion of "consent": I make a decision, there is no gun pointed at my head (nor any violation of my property rights), therefore I am free.

There are so many other ways to express power that anyone truly concerned with freedom must consider, though--the power to exploit economic dependence being perhaps the most prominent one, but not only that. If I pressure or manipulate someone into doing something they don't really want to do, that too is a violation of freedom. If I create a cultural environment hostile to certain views or lifestyles, even if I do not use physical force, I am marginalizing and restricting the freedom of people.

As a consequence, I can see (not necessarily accept) arguments for things like restricting hate speech that right-wing libertarians have no framework to even appreciate.

There are so many other ways to express power that anyone truly concerned with freedom must consider, though--the power to exploit economic dependence being perhaps the most prominent one,

What is your solution?

If I pressure or manipulate someone into doing something they don't really want to do, that too is a violation of freedom.

No one exists in a vacuum, the free actions of one necessarily the decisions and actions of another. Do you have any manner of avoiding this?

If I create a cultural environment hostile to certain views or lifestyles, even if I do not use physical force, I am marginalizing and restricting the freedom of people.

What is your solution?

As a consequence, I can see (not necessarily accept) arguments for things like restricting hate speech that right-wing libertarians have no framework to even appreciate.

And these are libertarian arguments?

What is your solution?

Socialism. Communism ultimately.

Do you have any manner of avoiding this?

Not really. But it illustrates the philosophical problem with the right-wing libertarian doctrine, which comes into play with respect to, say, advertisement.

What is your solution?

In principle, such considerations could justify restrictions on a variety of things right-wing libertarians consider inviolable--from pornography to absolute religious freedom.

And these are libertarian arguments?

I am not dogmatic. I support a broad, substantive conception of freedom, not a word. If those arguments stem from a legitimate notion of freedom--and I think they do--it makes no difference whether the position they advocate is "libertarian" or not by whoever's standard.

Socialism. Communism ultimately.

There are many branches.

Not really. But it illustrates the philosophical problem with the right-wing libertarian doctrine, which comes into play with respect to, say, advertisement.

Obviously it represents a philosophical with living, and hence all political systems.

In principle, such considerations could justify restrictions on a variety of things right-wing libertarians consider inviolable--from pornography to absolute religious freedom.

Do left-wing libertarians support these restrictions, or are you just not that libertarian?

I am not dogmatic. I support a broad, substantive conception of freedom, not a word. If those arguments stem from a legitimate notion of freedom--and I think they do--it makes no difference whether the position they advocate is "libertarian" or not by whoever's standard.

The question was whether right and left libertarians are very different, and your admittance that you do not care whether an argument is libertarian doesn't bode well for your attempt to represent the libertarian left.

There are many branches.

What kind of specifics do you want?

Obviously it represents a philosophical with living, and hence all political systems.

I said "doctrine", not policy. The problem is that the right-wing libertarian notion of "freedom" cannot even recognize this as a problem, as a violation of freedom. Not that it cannot present a political solution.

Do left-wing libertarians support these restrictions, or are you just not that libertarian?

That's part of the problem... you are measuring "more" or "less" libertarian on a scale I have no reason to accept.

The Spanish Anarchists wrecked churches in 1936. Was this the right decision? Perhaps not. Did it mean that they were suddenly no longer part of the libertarian socialist tradition? Hardly. Does it mean that they are less "libertarian" to right-wing libertarians? Of course.

The question was whether right and left libertarians are very different, and your admittance that you do not care whether an argument is libertarian doesn't bode well for your attempt to represent the libertarian left.

Disagreement with the absolutist defense of free speech in the case of hate speech (especially when such speech is associated with fascism) is actually rather common on the radical left, from anarchists to Leninists.

What kind of specifics do you want?



I said "doctrine", not policy. The problem is that the right-wing libertarian notion of "freedom" cannot even recognize this as a problem, as a violation of freedom. Not that it cannot present a political solution.



That's part of the problem... you are measuring "more" or "less" libertarian on a scale I have no reason to accept.

The Spanish Anarchists wrecked churches in 1936. Was this the right decision? Perhaps not. Did it mean that they were suddenly no longer part of the libertarian socialist tradition? Hardly. Does it mean that they are less "libertarian" to right-wing libertarians? Of course.



Disagreement with the absolutist defense of free speech in the case of hate speech (especially when such speech is associated with fascism) is actually rather common on the radical left, from anarchists to Leninists.

Perhaps we should establish a mutually acceptable definition of libertarianism, and then revisit this line of discussion.

I would say that libertarianism is the belief in individual self-ownership, and that only aggression is immoral. What do you think?

I would say that libertarianism is the belief in individual self-ownership,

A good case might be made that the problem begins here: in the notion that our selves meaningfully resemble "property", and that this is more or less the defining feature of the kinds of actions that are moral violations and the kinds of supposed moral violations that really aren't.

No, morality has nothing to do with "individual self-ownership", it has to do with respect, and respect means that our regard for the worth and autonomy of others goes far beyond not using physical force against them, and, at times, may even demand using physical force against them (and also against others who threaten their autonomy and justly-demanded welfare.)

While moral views differ considerably among left-wing anarchists, I don't think the sorts of frameworks typically advanced from "individual self-ownership" are particularly appealing to most of us.

and that only aggression is immoral.

You surely already know that I reject this principle, unless we make aggression really broad, and I see no reason to expect that other left-wing anarchists are particularly likely to disagree with me. Even the right-wing libertarians rarely accept that principle... they tend to argue not that aggression is the only moral wrong, but that it is the only enforceable prohibition.

There is, of course, a left-wing libertarian tradition, the free-market socialists (or at least anti-capitalists), who might be inclined to accept this as a political principle the way right-wing libertarianism does, with comparable understandings of "aggression." But not, for the most part, those of us who identify with the tradition of "social anarchism", which constitutes most of us on and off NSG.

What do you think?

I think that "libertarian" means "highly concerned with the maximization of freedom." There is no other common ground. And that is why most of our similarities seem superficial to me--the fact that we have very different understandings of "freedom" makes our frameworks not more or less equivalent, but very much incompatible.

"Libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" has tended to mean opposition to the centralized hierarchical state, and the preference for decentralized, grass-roots "governance" on the basis of democratic (consensus or majoritarian) communities formed through free association.

"Libertarian" in the right-wing libertarian framework has tended to mean carrying the individual rights associated with liberalism to their extreme... and is thus founded on a framework of "liberty" that leftists of all stripes have traditionally rejected as insufficient at the very least and, in some respects, outright counterproductive to the overall end of achieving freedom.

Hey hey give me a break that is a hard thing to spell, and its not like I canchange my title.

I was talking about something entirely different.

Look up the definition of the word libertine, and you'll know why I'd be all for a political party with that as its major policy.

Libertarianism is a brilliant idea. A political approach that can never be defeated because no matter how many times it is torn apart and demonstrated to be a lot of horsecrap the next guy can go "Hey, that was Libertarianism v456. That's clearly stupid! Listen, my Libertarianism v378 has all the answers!"

Na, its more like Communism - a pipe dream, a nice idea *IN THEORY* but the reality is, the average person is a moron, and the idea in itself is based on everyone *NOT* being morons.

A good case might be made that the problem begins here: in the notion that our selves meaningfully resemble "property", and that this is more or less the defining feature of the kinds of actions that are moral violations and the kinds of supposed moral violations that really aren't.

No, morality has nothing to do with "individual self-ownership", it has to do with respect, and respect means that our regard for the worth and autonomy of others goes far beyond not using physical force against them, and, at times, may even demand using physical force against them (and also against others who threaten their autonomy and justly-demanded welfare.)

While moral views differ considerably among left-wing anarchists, I don't think the sorts of frameworks typically advanced from "individual self-ownership" are particularly appealing to most of us.

You surely already know that I reject this principle, unless we make aggression really broad, and I see no reason to expect that other left-wing anarchists are particularly likely to disagree with me. Even the right-wing libertarians rarely accept that principle... they tend to argue not that aggression is the only moral wrong, but that it is the only enforceable prohibition.

There is, of course, a left-wing libertarian tradition, the free-market socialists (or at least anti-capitalists), who might be inclined to accept this as a political principle the way right-wing libertarianism does, with comparable understandings of "aggression." But not, for the most part, those of us who identify with the tradition of "social anarchism", which constitutes most of us on and off NSG.

I think that "libertarian" means "highly concerned with the maximization of freedom." There is no other common ground. And that is why most of our similarities seem superficial to me--the fact that we have very different understandings of "freedom" makes our frameworks not more or less equivalent, but very much incompatible.

"Libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" has tended to mean opposition to the centralized hierarchical state, and the preference for decentralized, grass-roots "governance" on the basis of democratic (consensus or majoritarian) communities formed through free association.

"Libertarian" in the right-wing libertarian framework has tended to mean carrying the individual rights associated with liberalism to their extreme... and is thus founded on a framework of "liberty" that leftists of all stripes have traditionally rejected as insufficient at the very least and, in some respects, outright counterproductive to the overall end of achieving freedom.

Alright, we need to explore your views along with the views of others who describe themselves or have been accepted as left-libertarians.

First, with Proudhon we find that justice prescribes one legal norm: that contracts must be lived up to. He states "That I may remain free, that I may be subjected to now law but my own, and that I may govern myself, the edifice of society must be built upon the idea of contract" Now I ask you, how can any justice so founded on self-government and contract not be also founded in the principle of self-ownership of individual sovereignty. We cannot possibly construe Proudhon's politics as not placing priority on the issue of moral self-ownership and the respect thereof from others.

Bakunin also shares this view that contracts must be lived up to but adds: "Human justice cannot recognize anything as creating an obligation in perpetuity. All rights and duties are founded in liberty. The right of freely uniting and separating is the first and most important of all political rights," and "that I as a man am entitled to obey no other man, and to act only in accordance with my own judgment." Again, how can we have a political system that is founded in the right to freely unite and separate and that permits all men to act only in accordance with their own judgment that does not admit at its root the right of self-ownership?

Tucker, in his justifications of force against aggressors and his denouncements of usury obviously supported an idea of self-ownership. In his description of anarchism he states:

The development of the economic programme which consists in the destruction of these monopolies and the substitution for them of the freest competition led its authors to a perception of the fact that all their thought rested upon a very fundamental principle, the freedom of the individual, his right of sovereignty over himself, his products, and his affairs, and of rebellion against the dictation of external authority.

These ideas run through the list of libertarians, anywhere you see a thinker who bases his politics on contracts and voluntarism, or his economics on the idea that all men are rightful owners of their own product, you find a libertarian who bases his idea of justice in self-ownership.

Today, with the thinking on rights, property, and ownership more fleshed out than ever, we can turn to modern left-libertarians who explicitly state the basic axiomatic nature of self-ownership. In a paper (http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP&PA.pdf) authored by Michael Otsuka, Hillel Steiner, and Peter Vallentyne they state:

Over the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in left-libertarianism, which holds (roughly) that agents fully own themselves
and that natural resources (land, minerals, air, and the like) belong to
everyone in some egalitarian sense.

and later:

Left-libertarianism rests on two central claims: (1) full initial self-ownership
for all agents, and (2) egalitarian ownership of natural resources.


Now, when we turn to your views, it seems that you veer rather far from what would be considered libertarian thought (and then hijack the title for whatever reason), but it should be explored a little more closely.

One central problem is that you invoke nebulous concepts as moral standards like "respect", "worth and autonomy", and "highly concerned with the maximization of freedom". What do these mean? How does respect "demand using physical force against them" and how can this be libertarian?

Furthermore, how can you call out for "respect for worth and autonomy of others" and then call for governance through free association without implicitly accepting self-ownership?

People who believe in giving people any freedom they want, so long as they can back it up with a quote from a book which suggests that it's a good idea are Libritarians.

Zing!





Though this could probably be applied to a lot of political ideologies...

Now, when we turn to your views, it seems that you veer rather far from what would be considered libertarian thought (and then hijack the title for whatever reason), but it should be explored a little more closely.

No, you are simply conflating two different political ideologies.

There is a tradition of free-market libertarianism that is also "left-wing" in a sense: essentially following individualist anarchists like Tucker and Spooner (who themselves followed Proudhon) in their rejection of capitalism but not of the property-based, market-oriented libertarian framework that is also at the root of capitalist libertarianism.

Then there is the tradition of left-wing social anarchism, which is not "libertarian" in this sense at all... but rather is libertarian in desiring collective self-rule (anarchy) rather than hierarchical control (statism.)

It is the latter to which I belong. I have never claimed otherwise.

One central problem is that you invoke nebulous concepts as moral standards like "respect", "worth and autonomy", and "highly concerned with the maximization of freedom". What do these mean?

I could elaborate for a while, but what would be the point? It's not really relevant. It's just a different moral framework.

In the last case, "highly concerned with the maximization of freedom" is indeed nebulous... that is precisely the point.

How does respect "demand using physical force against them"

When they are drunk and about to jump into a river? When they are addicted to something to the point that they no longer can maintain self-control?

and how can this be libertarian?

To me? On the grounds that human freedom is not as simple as self-ownership, nor is it synonymous with the absence of external constraint. If we act purely on whim, we are not free... there is an element of self-control, of willpower, that is needed in the picture.

To you? I don't know if they could ever be. Again, that's my point.

Furthermore, how can you call out for "respect for worth and autonomy of others" and then call for governance through free association without implicitly accepting self-ownership?

Because none of those have anything to do with "self-ownership"?

They are all connected to individual freedom. But there are many ways to defend individual freedom without asserting that we "own" ourselves. I see no real justification, at least in the vast majority of cases, to force membership in a political community on an individual: the goal of the political community must be the good of all, and if an individual does not believe that she is being served, it is her right to go elsewhere. But that reasoning depends in no way on self-ownership.

I have been reading quite a few posts on this recently and I was wondering, what IS liberatrianism. I used to assume that it was just american liberals with more moderate views. But I have been hearing some strong bashing of it from liberals. So what is it and what does it stand for. Also how is it different from liberalism(of the american kind).

Basically, you take away all the bad parts of a conservative, and take away all of the bad parts of a liberal, and then you take all of the good bits that are left over and mush them all up together into one great big awesome pie.

I mean policy.

Although pie is good also.

The pie is not a lie.

See how that works so much better than cake? It even rhymes! Stupid Valve...

Then there is the tradition of left-wing social anarchism, which is not "libertarian" in this sense at all... but rather is libertarian in desiring collective self-rule (anarchy) rather than hierarchical control (statism.)

Collective self-rule based on voluntary contract and association, hence implicitly accepting the doctrine of self-ownership.

If we act purely on whim, we are not free... there is an element of self-control, of willpower, that is needed in the picture.

Of course prohibition of action committed during a lack of self-control can be resolved with self-ownership. It all depends on the intent of the intervention.

They are all connected to individual freedom. But there are many ways to defend individual freedom without asserting that we "own" ourselves. I see no real justification, at least in the vast majority of cases, to force membership in a political community on an individual: the goal of the political community must be the good of all, and if an individual does not believe that she is being served, it is her right to go elsewhere. But that reasoning depends in no way on self-ownership.

Then what is the reasoning behind it?

Collective self-rule based on voluntary contract and association, hence implicitly accepting the doctrine of self-ownership.

Hence accepting some of the conclusions of the doctrine of self-ownership.

Not others. If "self-ownership" is the criterion for individual freedom, we cannot even recognize economic power and exploitation as most left-wing anarchists understand it. Exclusive private control of the means of production violates no one's self-ownership unless it is usurped--the problem, then, is the alleged theft upon which the ownership is based, not the power relations following from the ownership.

Of course, once we recognize the potential for power and exploitation in making conditional the fulfillment of the fundamental human desire for material welfare, it follows logically that there is also potential for power and exploitation in making conditional (or denying entirely) the fulfillment of other basic human desires.

Of course prohibition of action committed during a lack of self-control can be resolved with self-ownership.

Does my ownership end just because I lack self-control? Is it any less theft to take my stuff?

Then what is the reasoning behind it?

Individual freedom. The individual is only subject to the decisions of others insofar as her actions for her own good can nevertheless be counterproductive to the good of others, and therefore to the ultimate goal of good of all. Once her actions no longer affect those others, there is no basis for their having political authority over her.

Libertarians believe in a great deal of personal and economic freedom. However there are wide differences between libertarians on exactly how much freedom is best.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.)."

"Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership."

Wikipedia on Libertarianism:

"The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership."

Wikipedia on Left-Libertarianism:

"Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally."

Hence accepting some of the conclusions of the doctrine of self-ownership.

Not others. If "self-ownership" is the criterion for individual freedom, we cannot even recognize economic power and exploitation as most left-wing anarchists understand it. Exclusive private control of the means of production violates no one's self-ownership unless it is usurped--the problem, then, is the alleged theft upon which the ownership is based, not the power relations following from the ownership.

The entire idea of usury and exploitation in left-libertarianism is based in the idea that the worker is stripped of his own by those who have illegitimate ownership of natural resources. The left-libertarian namely says that the owners of capital are using their power to strip the worker of his or her self-ownership.

How is exploitation unjustified if it is not looked at as stripping the worker of what is justly his own, and if it justly his own, what is the root of this ownership?

Does my ownership end just because I lack self-control? Is it any less theft to take my stuff?

As I said, it depends on the intent. If the person is merely interfering when someone is about to harm himself in a loss of self-control, there is no necessary interference in self-ownership. If one steals from another or harms another while that other has a temporary loss of control, then of course it is an entirely different action and intent.

Issues like this are difficult, but they do not deny the idea of self-ownership.

Individual freedom. The individual is only subject to the decisions of others insofar as her actions for her own good can nevertheless be counterproductive to the good of others, and therefore to the ultimate goal of good of all. Once her actions no longer affect those others, there is no basis for their having political authority over her.

The more you explain what you mean on this matter, the more I dislike your position, but the less I understand your rationale for it.

Three questions:

Why does one have to respect the "good of others" with one's own actions?

Why is one only subject to the decisions of others in these times, why can't other simply take authority at any time?

Are all individuals required to acquire consent from all others for all actions that necessarily impact all other members of society?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.)."

So? Again, you are conflating ideologies.

Notably, nowhere does the article in question mention "socialism" of any variety, merely different theories of private appropriation.

Wikipedia on Left-Libertarianism:

"Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally."

An interesting article.

Who do they mention? Geolibertarians, Henry George, Kevin Carson... as I have said, those falling to one degree or another into free-market libertarian anti-capitalist tradition. There are, of course, other leftists who have used, with justification, the "libertarian" label.

Wikipedia also provides a (different) entry for "libertarian socialism." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) Indeed, at the top of the article you cite, it states: "For the anti-statist versions of socialism, see libertarian socialism."

Because they are not the same.

Here, from An Anarchist FAQ on self-ownership (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html#secb42):

"Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not convinced. That "self-ownership," like slavery, places issues of freedom and individuality within the context of private property -- as such it shares the most important claim of slavery, namely that people can be objects of the rules of private property. It suggests an alienated perspective and, moreover, a fatal flaw in the dogma. This can be seen from how the axiom is used in practice. In as much as the term "self-ownership" is used simply as an synonym for "individual autonomy" anarchists do not have an issue with it. However, the "basic axiom" is not used in this way by the theorists of capitalism. Liberty in the sense of individual autonomy is not what "self-ownership" aims to justify. Rather, it aims to justify the denial of liberty, not its exercise. It aims to portray social relationships, primarily wage labour, in which one person commands another as examples of liberty rather than what they are, examples of domination and oppression. In other words, "self-ownership" becomes the means by which the autonomy of individuals is limited, if not destroyed, in the name of freedom and liberty."

This, of course, is exactly what one would expect from a doctrine founding individual autonomy on property ownership... denying me the means of survival unless I subordinate myself to the owners of capital does not violate any property right over my body, just a more substantive conception of freedom.

The entire idea of usury and exploitation in left-libertarianism is based in the idea that the worker is stripped of his own by those who have illegitimate ownership of natural resources. The left-libertarian namely says that the owners of capital are using their power to strip the worker of his or her self-ownership.

Yes, their rhetoric sometimes sounds like that... just as right-wing libertarians might criticize the draft while accepting that a big landowner could do the same to her tenants.

As with right-libertarians, the problem is on the "illegitimate ownership" side of things (though they disagree on what means are legitimate): the owners of capital unjustly acquired their property, and therefore the actions they take with the power they illegitimately acquired are also illegitimate. "Self-ownership" is only violated because the just value of labor, the market value of labor under conditions of justly-acquired property, is denied to the laborer. Not simply because the laborer is subordinated and exploited.

Libertarian socialists, on the other hand, tend to make this argument backwards: the owners of capital have power over others, power over others is inherently illegitimate, and thus their ownership is inherently illegitimate (regardless of how it was acquired.)

How is exploitation unjustified if it is not looked at as stripping the worker of what is justly his own, and if it justly his own, what is the root of this ownership?

In the obligation to treat people as beings with intrinsic worth and not just as things to be used (exploited) for private benefit--an obligation that arises from moral equality. I would not accept such treatment for myself, so I cannot employ it against others.

In accordance with this principle, the end of any association must be the welfare of all the participants: not just in the narrow market sense of "both parties benefit", because that only requires that the weaker party (or parties) benefit just enough to get him or her to participate, but full and equal benefit.

As I said, it depends on the intent. If the person is merely interfering when someone is about to harm himself in a loss of self-control, there is no necessary interference in self-ownership.

I agree that there is no necessary interference in individual freedom.

But there is necessary interference in self-ownership. To use another person's property without his or her consent is theft, whatever the intent.

Why does one have to respect the "good of others" with one's own actions?

Because sentient beings are equal.

Why is one only subject to the decisions of others in these times, why can't other simply take authority at any time?

I already explained this, explicitly... at least if I'm understanding your question correctly.

"The individual is only subject to the decisions of others insofar as her actions for her own good can nevertheless be counterproductive to the good of others, and therefore to the ultimate goal of good of all. Once her actions no longer affect those others, there is no basis for their having political authority over her."

Are all individuals required to acquire consent from all others for all actions that necessarily impact all other members of society?

No; otherwise conflict resolution would be impossible.

which proves?

That I'm not "afraid" of it. I don't watch T.V., but I'm not "afraid" of it.

its about harsh punishment, you see in the good old days people got hung for stealing bread

didn't work and it wasn't just an idea someone had one day it was a gradual process of increasing punishment hoping that it actually does deter crime (which it proves doesn't especially compared with more modern ideas such as evil commie welfare)

You got me all wrong. I only think criminals should be killed if there is no-hope of them being rehabilitated, because I don't want to invest in the meal of an unproductive member of society. I don't believe in "justice".

As for welfare I can see the point in it, but only if the person absolutely cannot get a job. But I see "help wanted" signs everywhere, and unless the person is extremely disabled, I doubt they should receive welfare. Why would one work if they can just get the money from the government?

ok, now have you ever examined his work, "agrarian justice"?

Mhhmm. Yes, I know he had many communist ideals. He was not an exact classical liberal in that sense.

Here, from An Anarchist FAQ on self-ownership (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html#secb42):

"Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not convinced. That "self-ownership," like slavery, places issues of freedom and individuality within the context of private property -- as such it shares the most important claim of slavery, namely that people can be objects of the rules of private property. It suggests an alienated perspective and, moreover, a fatal flaw in the dogma. This can be seen from how the axiom is used in practice. In as much as the term "self-ownership" is used simply as an synonym for "individual autonomy" anarchists do not have an issue with it. However, the "basic axiom" is not used in this way by the theorists of capitalism. Liberty in the sense of individual autonomy is not what "self-ownership" aims to justify. Rather, it aims to justify the denial of liberty, not its exercise. It aims to portray social relationships, primarily wage labour, in which one person commands another as examples of liberty rather than what they are, examples of domination and oppression. In other words, "self-ownership" becomes the means by which the autonomy of individuals is limited, if not destroyed, in the name of freedom and liberty."

This, of course, is exactly what one would expect from a doctrine founding individual autonomy on property ownership... denying me the means of survival unless I subordinate myself to the owners of capital does not violate any property right over my body, just a more substantive conception of freedom.

There is no argument here, only a refusal to address the issue.

There will always be scarce resources that people percieve as necessary to produce a particular good. Therefore, there will always be claims to resources that must be resolved by property rights, legal or moral. We can expect person and labor to be included among these resources that property is applied to.

Now that we have established that property will exist, we will explore what rights are given by full self ownership: 1) Control over the self, where one has right to use one's person and the right to deny another from using one's person, 2) Right to compensation when use occurs without prior consent, 3) Right of self-defense, the ability to enforce the rights enumerated here, 4) rights of transfer, the right to give one's labor to whatever person or cause one wishes.

Now, the anarchist must address property rights, so where does the anarchist propose that the person isn't treated as a private self-owner? Should the person not have control over himself? Should the person used by others? Should the person be denied the right to defend himself? Where is the divergence?

It is obvious that left anarchists do not address and attack the issue, rather they attack the connotations of property, as they are wont to do. Even your comment doesn't say anything as self-ownership does not necessarily imply anything about capital, at least to those are actually left-libertarians.

As with right-libertarians, the problem is on the "illegitimate ownership" side of things (though they disagree on what means are legitimate): the owners of capital unjustly acquired their property, and therefore the actions they take with the power they illegitimately acquired are also illegitimate. "Self-ownership" is only violated because the just value of labor, the market value of labor under conditions of justly-acquired property, is denied to the laborer. Not simply because the laborer is subordinated and exploited.

Libertarian socialists, on the other hand, tend to make this argument backwards: the owners of capital have power over others, power over others is inherently illegitimate, and thus their ownership is inherently illegitimate (regardless of how it was acquired.)

Again there is nothing distinguishing here. The self-ownership is violated according to left-libertarians because unjustly acquired natural resources creates a power gap which forces the worker to forsake their self-ownership for survival.

In the obligation to treat people as beings with intrinsic worth and not just as things to be used (exploited) for private benefit--an obligation that arises from moral equality. I would not accept such treatment for myself, so I cannot employ it against others.

In accordance with this principle, the end of any association must be the welfare of all the participants: not just in the narrow market sense of "both parties benefit", because that only requires that the weaker party (or parties) benefit just enough to get him or her to participate, but full and equal benefit.

Is this moral equality enforceable on those who disagree?

It implies that children should be raised collectively and equally. Is it legitimate to force the mother to turn over her newborn child?

Should one be coerced into donating a rare blood type when one is of sound health.

Just how far do you push this moral equality?

Because sentient beings are equal.

Even if it were true, it means nothing, they could be equally worthy of contempt. What is the basis for equal respect?

I already explained this, explicitly... at least if I'm understanding your question correctly.

"The individual is only subject to the decisions of others insofar as her actions for her own good can nevertheless be counterproductive to the good of others, and therefore to the ultimate goal of good of all. Once her actions no longer affect those others, there is no basis for their having political authority over her."

You aren't saying anything here. Why does her interference with others necessarily justify authority?

Now, the anarchist must address property rights, so where does the anarchist propose that the person isn't treated as a private self-owner? Should the person not have control over himself? Should the person used by others? Should the person be denied the right to defend himself? Where is the divergence?

You are missing the point.

The problem is not, for the most part, with the specific rights guaranteed by self-ownership. The problem is with articulating a case for individual autonomy on the basis of self-ownership... because the implications of self-ownership are highly limited.

Even your comment doesn't say anything as self-ownership does not necessarily imply anything about capital, at least to those are actually left-libertarians.

Indeed. Self-ownership implies absolutely nothing about capital. That is precisely the point.

A concern for genuine, substantive autonomy allows us to critique capital because, and just because, it allows for domination. A concern for self-ownership does not.

Again there is nothing distinguishing here. The self-ownership is violated according to left-libertarians because unjustly acquired natural resources creates a power gap which forces the worker to forsake their self-ownership for survival.

Again, even though the conclusion is similar, the reasoning is very different, with important differences for the sorts of alternatives proposed.

Wiki/SEP's left-libertarian: "Capital is illegitimately acquired through state-sponsored theft and unjust manners of private acquisition. Therefore, the domination of the worker by the capitalist is unjustified."

Most left-anarchists and libertarian socialists: "The worker is dominated by the capitalist, and domination is inherently wrong and unjustified. Therefore, the property relation that underlies this domination (capital) is illegitimate."

Is this moral equality enforceable on those who disagree?

Is self-ownership enforceable on those who disagree?

It implies that children should be raised collectively and equally.

And how does it do that?

Should one be coerced into donating a rare blood type when one is of sound health.

If it will save someone's life, and there is no alternative? Yes.

Even if it were true, it means nothing, they could be equally worthy of contempt.

Then the individual shouldn't be pursuing her own good at all.

You aren't saying anything here. Why does her interference with others necessarily justify authority?

Because her authority over anyone but herself is unjustified.

*snip

You sound suspiciously Machiavellian.

Mhhmm. Yes, I know he had many communist ideals. He was not an exact classical liberal in that sense.

in other words, here you don't define classical liberalism as a school of thought and a diverse set of thinkers, but as an ahistorical thing which actual classical liberals can occasionally be shoved part way into. but you just got done talking about classical liberalism as the ideas of people behind the american revolution. you can't have it both ways. and if you use the ahistorical ideology definition, then you are essentially declaring that modern libertarians are modern libertarians, since you won't be able to shove many (if any) real classical liberals into the box all the way.

in other words, here you don't define classical liberalism as a school of thought and a diverse set of thinkers, but as an ahistorical thing which actual classical liberals can occasionally be shoved part way into.

Er, could you phrase that a little clearer please?

but you just got done talking about classical liberalism as the ideas of people behind the american revolution.

No, no, no. Behind the signing of the Articles of Confederation. There were far too many people who supported the Revolution to category them in one political train of thought.

you can't have it both ways. and if you use the ahistorical ideology definition, then you are essentially declaring that modern libertarians are modern libertarians, since you won't be able to shove many (if any) real classical liberals into the box all the way.

Correct. Technically there is no real "box". I, for instance, am for legalization of nudity; many Libertarians aren't.

You are missing the point.

The problem is not, for the most part, with the specific rights guaranteed by self-ownership. The problem is with articulating a case for individual autonomy on the basis of self-ownership... because the implications of self-ownership are highly limited.

No they are not. You cannot advance past the idea of self-ownership without stomping on individual autonomy.

Indeed. Self-ownership implies absolutely nothing about capital. That is precisely the point.

A concern for genuine, substantive autonomy allows us to critique capital because, and just because, it allows for domination. A concern for self-ownership does not.

Nonsense. The concept of self-ownership allows for a consistent and meaningful critique of domination, in fact, if we go past the idea of self-ownership and consent we have then gotten into further domination.

The point I was trying to makes is that self-ownership doesn't necessarily point towards capital, as differing viewpoints use self-ownership arguments to attack capital, and therefore attacking self-ownership on the basis of capital is wrong.

Meaningful self-ownership arguments have been employed for and against capital.

Again, even though the conclusion is similar, the reasoning is very different, with important differences for the sorts of alternatives proposed.

Wiki/SEP's left-libertarian: "Capital is illegitimately acquired through state-sponsored theft and unjust manners of private acquisition. Therefore, the domination of the worker by the capitalist is unjustified."

Most left-anarchists and libertarian socialists: "The worker is dominated by the capitalist, and domination is inherently wrong and unjustified. Therefore, the property relation that underlies this domination (capital) is illegitimate."

And again, the libertarian states that domination is entirely illegitimate. The reason that private acquisition is unjustified in left-libertarian ideology is because it is domination, and any argument that assumes that domination is wrong also assumes that people are moral self-owners.

That has been the argument so far, that any ideology where everyone is an end in themselves implies everyone to be a self-owner. Any ideology that requires consent and free association, despite what the free association may be, implies that all are self-owners.

Is self-ownership enforceable on those who disagree?

It cannot be. It is a contradiction to force someone to own something, as ownership also implies the right to not own.

But you did not answer what is the basic question of this discussion.

Is this moral equality enforceable, is it morally acceptable to coerce people to respect this moral equality? If it is, then you have implied the legitimacy of the state, and you are not a libertarian. If you cannot force people to accept moral equality, rather they must accept it through free association, you imply self-ownership is a more fundamental moral right.

And how does it do that?

Private parenting is necessarily unequal, and therefore does not provide full and equal benefits to all children.

If it will save someone's life, and there is no alternative? Yes.

Then you have justified the state and you are not a libertarian.

Because her authority over anyone but herself is unjustified.

You are just saying the same thing.

Why is what you are saying so?

No they are not. You cannot advance past the idea of self-ownership without stomping on individual autonomy.

"Individual autonomy includes freedom from social pressure."

This is not at all implied by self-ownership, but in no way tramples on "individual autonomy"... quite the opposite.

Nonsense. The concept of self-ownership allows for a consistent and meaningful critique of domination, in fact, if we go past the idea of self-ownership and consent we have then gotten into further domination.

No, we haven't.

And this is precisely the point I have been making throughout: the differences between socialist libertarians and capitalist (or even free-market) libertarians are not minor and superficial, but profound and founded upon fundamentally different conceptions of freedom. The most prominent conflict is in the area of capital--but the bases for this disagreement suggest others.

And again, the libertarian states that domination is entirely illegitimate. The reason that private acquisition is unjustified in left-libertarian ideology is because it is domination,

No... rather they tend to question the right-libertarian assumption that more or less unrestricted private appropriation can be reconciled with the rights everyone has to what is natural.

In essence, the "left-libertarian ideology" you refer to has a property dispute as its basis for the critique of capital. Not an analysis that sees domination as the fundamental, the determining problem. And I don't think any ideology reducing individual autonomy to "self-ownership" can move beyond this.

That has been the argument so far, that any ideology where everyone is an end in themselves implies everyone to be a self-owner. Any ideology that requires consent and free association, despite what the free association may be, implies that all are self-owners.

Not at all. There may be overlap, but there is no reason whatsoever that an advocate of a notion of individual freedom different from "self-ownership" need found consent and free association on self-ownership anyway.

It cannot be. It is a contradiction to force someone to own something, as ownership also implies the right to not own.

I didn't mean forcing self-ownership on someone who doesn't want to own herself... I meant forcing recognition of self-ownership on someone who doesn't want to recognize another's right to self-ownership.

Is this moral equality enforceable, is it morally acceptable to coerce people to respect this moral equality? If it is, then you have implied the legitimacy of the state, and you are not a libertarian.

The only way I can see this argument being made is if all "coercion" is intrinsically statist... in which case the only people who are really libertarians are pacifists.

If you cannot force people to accept moral equality, rather they must accept it through free association

Need people accept free association (which, as I have suggested, follows at least to some degree from moral equality) through free association?

If so, then you have accepted the legitimacy of the state. If not, then, following your logic, you have also accepted the legitimacy of the state.

Private parenting is necessarily unequal

Yes, and that's unfortunate. In principle, if collectively raising children produced better results--if children were better cared for, and if the distribution of goods were more equally distributed--there might be a good argument for it... and incidentally one that would not violate self-ownership or free association in the slightest. But I've seen no indication that such child-raising practices would actually be much of an improvement.

Then you have justified the state

No, I haven't.

To justify the state, I would have to argue (a) that there is no way to so coerce people within the framework of free association and radical political equality, and (b) that the necessity for such coercion is so strong and so common an occurrence that the costs of accepting the state are worth it.

As it happens, I accept neither premise, especially not (b)--there is virtually always an alternative.

Why is what you are saying so?

Because she cannot accept that anyone else rule her, by the very nature of "rule"... and as such it is illegitimate for her to accept this in the case of others.

It is a very bad and dishonest, evil political belief that some deranged people have. It would basically reduce the government to nothing and privatise every single thing so only rich people can afford it. It has never, ever worked nor will it ever work. It's a load of crap, but not as bad as objectivism, which is far worse.

I think this does a pretty good job of defining what a libertarian is. (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)

I think this does a pretty good job of defining what a libertarian is. (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)

My results:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=10&e=9

Compare this to the information found in my signature below. "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" can't tell the difference between capitalist and anti-capitalist libertarians. But, of course, neither can "Libertarians (http://www.lp.org/)." Thus, the ideological bias inherent in "The World's Smallest Political Quiz."

It says I belong to an ideology and party I would never vote for.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.


Libertarians support a small government and are not anarchists.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government;...


Libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) claim to, perhaps. But a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/libertarianism (metaphysics)) may be perfectly happy to accept rules, laws, traditions, or other agreements that limit "personal" and "economic" "freedom" if those limitations are arrived at via voluntary agreement consistent with free will.


Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility,


As does every socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/libertarian socialism) I care to associate with, because they are libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/libertarianism (metaphysics)). Do not confuse individual responsibility with schizoid isolation.


[Libertarians] promote private charity


Libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) might. But my libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/libertarianism (metaphysics)) and socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/libertarian_socialism) leanings seem to compel me to reject "private charity" for exactly the same reasons I reject public welfare. In a society truly characterized by a functional economic system based upon liberty, neither would be necessary. This is because "charity" and "welfare" are the occasional bone tossed to society in order to keep that society quiet, and to keep those who control (private economic interests and the state, respectively) in control. Instead, those who control should be told where to stick it, and society should aim to make every one of its constituent members into self-sufficient individuals, allowing those self-sufficient individuals to support and protect each other at their free will.

But economic dependence only limits liberty, whether instituted and exploited by the state or instituted and exploited by the private individual.


Libertarians...are not anarchists.


You're right. Eliminating only the part of the government that pursues the interests of the laboring class, while maintaining and strengthening that part which pursues the interests of the owners of capital, is not anarchism.

It's not very libertarian, either.

The essential right conferred by self-ownership is the ability to exclude others from control over one's own person. From this right, all other rights of self-ownership become apparent, and the self-owner is then only obligated to live by his own control, within the limits of all other self-owners. At this point the only allowable force or coercion is that which forces others to recognize the property claim of the self-owner. So, to answer your question, yes, self-ownership is enforceable on others who do not recognize self-ownership, it is the core right.

Now, what is extremely important to recognize, is that this allowable force exerts itself from the bottom up. It begins at the individual, whereby he or she protects his sovereignty from domination. Domination is necessarily top down, with one group or individual bringing force down upon another whom they control. When, however, there exists a society who accepts this notion of self-ownership, and there exists a collection of committed self-owners, only permitting force aimed up against this top-down domination, this domination will not occur.

So how does society organize itself when force is only allowed when directed up, never horizontally or down, so to speak? How does society function when all people have the right to forcefully exclude others from control over their own person? Obviously the only possible interaction and cooperation can be made through consent, as one must convince the other that it serves their interests without any force. Also necessarily, the self-owner must be allowed the ability to disassociate, and withdraw himself from both the benefits and authority of the group, otherwise he would lose the right to exclude others. If we turn the tables and look at a society of non self-owners and try and derive a system of free association and consent, we will only find absurdity. If one does not have the right to exclude others from control of his person, where could this possible obligation to obtain consent come from, one simply must assert their control (claim ownership) over another person to get the desired compliance. Where does the obligation to allow members of a union to secede arise from, the members have no right to force you to allow them, and you have no prohibition from exerting your control over their person.

At this point, one cannot accept any other moral obligation over self-ownership without justifying monopoly, conquest, and domination, as the requirement for agreement is lost.

In short, wherever self-ownership is lost, there will exist a state. Where anyone denies self-ownership, he is not a libertarian.

I think that you recognize this, to a degree, but cannot let go of some sort of Kantian ethics and egalitarianism. You do pay lip service to the idea of self-ownership when you mention free association, but you only mention free association as an aside after you have made notice of vague, undefined notion of "domination", "subordination", and "social pressure". I am not saying that any of these are invalid, but I cannot only offer general defenses of the idea of self-ownership whenever I am faced with a hazy cloud of unsubstantial concepts.



A couple of asides:

Yes, and that's unfortunate. In principle, if collectively raising children produced better results--if children were better cared for, and if the distribution of goods were more equally distributed--there might be a good argument for it... and incidentally one that would not violate self-ownership or free association in the slightest. But I've seen no indication that such child-raising practices would actually be much of an improvement.

Parental ability is a good, so necessarily collective raising of children would create a more equal distribution of goods. That is all the argument you need, correct?

To justify the state, I would have to argue (a) that there is no way to so coerce people within the framework of free association and radical political equality, and (b) that the necessity for such coercion is so strong and so common an occurrence that the costs of accepting the state are worth it.

As for A, coercion and free association are mutually exclusive.

As for B, why do you not just accept a limited state. The state does come in shades after all?

The essential right conferred by self-ownership is the ability to exclude others from control over one's own person.

No. That is the essential right conferred by any notion of freedom. The real disagreement is over what constitutes "control" and perhaps over what constitutes "one's own person."

"Self-ownership" wants us to accept that these can be encapsulated in a property right over our own bodies and (almost always) over property that we somehow acquire through mixing the labor we "own" with unowned objects. I see no reason to accept this assumptions.

From this right, all other rights of self-ownership become apparent,

Not obviously so. You must define "control over one's person" and give a standard of conflict resolution in such a way that you end up with self-ownership.

Conceive of "control" in a different way, or argue that conflicts should be resolved in a different way, and different conclusions ensue.

Now, what is extremely important to recognize, is that this allowable force exerts itself from the bottom up. It begins at the individual, whereby he or she protects his sovereignty from domination.

Yes, that's an essential component of anarchy.

But understandings of "sovereignty" and "domination" remain radically different.

When, however, there exists a society who accepts this notion of self-ownership,

...one specific understanding of what constitutes "sovereignty" and "domination"--of what needs to be defended and what needs to resisted.

For that matter, I would guess that on closer examination even the notion of "bottom up" force you mention is variable depending on these basic definitions.

Obviously the only possible interaction and cooperation can be made through consent,

No. "The only possible interaction and cooperation" must either be free or be coercive bottom-up.

If one does not have the right to exclude others from control of his person

But this is not exclusive to "self-ownership." Indeed, I can be "control[led]" by others withholding food from me, or manipulating my emotions, or intimidating me with hate rhetoric... and it is a considerable stretch to tie any of these to self-ownership.

one simply must assert their control (claim ownership) over another person to get the desired compliance.

Advocates of self-ownership do seem to like this false dichotomies: either we have self-ownership, or other people own us.

"Neither" remains a possibility.

At this point, one cannot accept any other moral obligation over self-ownership without justifying monopoly, conquest, and domination

But you have already accepted that force is acceptable "from the bottom up", in defense of freedom against domination. That's the crucial point. The rest is just a disagreement over what constitutes "bottom up", what constitutes "freedom" and what constitutes "domination"--not over the basic question of coercion v. liberty in the "how much" sense.

And we are back where we started: with my claim that (most) libertarian socialists and (most) right-wing libertarians differ very greatly on the question of what freedom constitutes.

I think that you recognize this, to a degree, but cannot let go of some sort of Kantian ethics and egalitarianism.

I do not think we can remotely justify any kind of freedom without referencing a notion of moral equality.

but you only mention free association as an aside after you have made notice of vague, undefined notion of "domination", "subordination", and "social pressure".

"Social pressure" is not a term that needs much "defining", and is not fundamental to the argument either. It is a specific case.

"Domination" and "subordination" are not easily explicable because they are not simple, straightforward concepts. That is precisely why we are having this argument.

I refuse to let go of this complexity. I refuse to reduce it to an oversimplified notion of "self-ownership", because--at least in virtually every form I have seen--such a simplification legitimates multiple means of domination.

That is all the argument you need, correct?

Incorrect. Killing everyone would produce a more equal distribution of goods, too.

Virtually no one believes in equality of goods distribution as a matter of absolute moral principle.

As for A, coercion and free association are mutually exclusive.

"We demand that all the members of our community wear white hats, or be expelled." How is this other than "coercion"? How is it other than "free association", as long as anyone is allowed to leave whenever they see fit?

As for B, why do you not just accept a limited state.

Because there is no such thing as a "limited" state, for the same reason that any class society will degrade whatever legitimate basis there might originally have been for the inequality. Once there are powerful and powerless, the powerless lose the power to protect their just interests as well as their unjust ones, and the powerful gain the power to advance their unjust interests as well as the just objectives they were empowered in the first place to advance.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/loverslikeunderscores/nsforum/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/loverslikeunderscores/nsforum/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-.gif

Well, it's for rich people, anyway. "Landlord can do whatever he wants cause it's his property" is hardly Anarchy. To see why, just change "Landlord" to "King" and "property" to "sovereign territory."

Different schmoe, but same exact logic.

I have been reading quite a few posts on this recently and I was wondering, what IS liberatrianism. I used to assume that it was just american liberals with more moderate views. But I have been hearing some strong bashing of it from liberals. So what is it and what does it stand for. Also how is it different from liberalism(of the american kind).

Libertarianism is either a theoretical strain of government designed to maximize individual freedom by requiring consent or agreement rather than coercion to be the central mechanism by which government operates, or it's a species of anarchism characterized by anti-state animus, boomer sentimentality, and significant naivette about life in the absence of coercive government power, depending upon whether you're drinking any Kool-Aid at the moment.

As for how it differs from traditional American liberalism, I suppose it depends on which species of American liberalism you're talking about. Po-Mo liberalism, albeit a contradiction in terms, shares some philosophical doubts about the legitemate coercive power of the state. The more classical strain of liberalism, by which I refer not to Buckley conservatism but real Lockean liberalism, looks at libertarians something like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/500350880_a288db686f.jpg?v=0

More specifically, when you look at the statement above offered by Vittos:


The essential right conferred by self-ownership is the ability to exclude others from control over one's own person. From this right, all other rights of self-ownership become apparent, and the self-owner is then only obligated to live by his own control, within the limits of all other self-owners. At this point the only allowable force or coercion is that which forces others to recognize the property claim of the self-owner. So, to answer your question, yes, self-ownership is enforceable on others who do not recognize self-ownership, it is the core right.

and if you strain your ears hard enough, you'll hear a faint whisper. That whisper is Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Madison falling over laughing. They laugh for the very simple reason that while it may well be your right to self-ownership, there is no correspondence between naturally having the right to retain it and realistically having the ability to retain it. Get a gun, and someone else will kill you while you sleep. Dig a moat, and someone will be smart enough to go over, beneath, or through it. Get some friends to defend yourself, and you have no assurances that one of those friends won't stab you in the back or that someone else isn't going to have a bigger group. Simply put, production in the state of nature is a fool's errand, and life in the state of nature is something any sane man flies from.

As such, we consent to live under an original compact that thereafter has sole legitemate authority within the territorial bounds we originally consented it to have. Accounts differ about how many rights you retain after this compact, but all agree that in order to live under this compact, you have to agree to give government the sole legal authority to make and enforce the laws, and to abide by those laws provided they are made legally. That differs substantially from the libertarian conception of legitemate law; it also explains why liberals so consistently refer to libertarians as closet anarchists: libertarians in the classical liberal view simply refuse to understand that a government that obtains its power by the universal consent of those willing to live under that particular law, and has no power to coerce those that disagree with that particular law, is no government at all.

I have been reading quite a few posts on this recently and I was wondering, what IS liberatrianism. I used to assume that it was just american liberals with more moderate views. But I have been hearing some strong bashing of it from liberals. So what is it and what does it stand for. Also how is it different from liberalism(of the american kind).

You eat them.

Er, could you phrase that a little clearer please?

ain't no classical liberals in the era of classical liberalism if we go by the modern libertarian definition of 'classical liberal'

As such, we consent to live under an original compact that thereafter has sole legitemate authority within the territorial bounds we originally consented it to have.
So I was born in Germany, and presumably consented on the day I was born, when the State actually holds that I am unable to consent to anything at all.

Or I consented on the day I turned 18 here in Australia, despite not being an Australian citizen, by virtue of not having gone to...well, where? In building a model of government by looking at the interests/consent/actions/capabilities of individuals, I would think you would at least briefly cover just how I relate to this government and where my option to act differently was.

Look, I admit I haven't done as much reading of the classics as you have, but unless you explain to me precisely what you mean by "consent to live" (refraining from suicide?), all I can see is an excuse for government to do whatever the hell it wants, because I somehow, somewhere, sometime consented to it doing so.

I personally think Maximilien Robespierre gave libertarians the treatment they deserved.

and if you strain your ears hard enough, you'll hear a faint whisper. That whisper is Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Madison falling over laughing. They laugh for the very simple reason that while it may well be your right to self-ownership, there is no correspondence between naturally having the right to retain it and realistically having the ability to retain it. Get a gun, and someone else will kill you while you sleep. Dig a moat, and someone will be smart enough to go over, beneath, or through it. Get some friends to defend yourself, and you have no assurances that one of those friends won't stab you in the back or that someone else isn't going to have a bigger group. Simply put, production in the state of nature is a fool's errand, and life in the state of nature is something any sane man flies from.

A collective of mutual self-owners is not a state of nature, rather this society as a necessary "social contract" is closer to any state of nature.

As for your insistence that self-defense is so impossible as to imply the necessity of the state, I am not impressed.

As such, we consent to live under an original compact that thereafter has sole legitemate authority within the territorial bounds we originally consented it to have. Accounts differ about how many rights you retain after this compact, but all agree that in order to live under this compact, you have to agree to give government the sole legal authority to make and enforce the laws, and to abide by those laws provided they are made legally. That differs substantially from the libertarian conception of legitemate law; it also explains why liberals so consistently refer to libertarians as closet anarchists: libertarians in the classical liberal view simply refuse to understand that a government that obtains its power by the universal consent of those willing to live under that particular law, and has no power to coerce those that disagree with that particular law, is no government at all.

What government has ever obtained universal consent?! The history of government is the history of conquest, aggression, and theft.

And I am no closet anarchist, I am full blown anarchist. If you actually read my post you would know that I equate government to the ability to coerce according to public law. Minarchist libertarians also accept this, despite what you say, they just support government.

"Self-ownership" wants us to accept that these can be encapsulated in a property right over our own bodies

Why can't they?

"Neither" remains a possibility.

I have already explained why property rights over a person will exist, but perhaps you will explain how neither will remain a possibility.

I do not think we can remotely justify any kind of freedom without referencing a notion of moral equality.

Of course, but moral equality and egalitarianism is not the same thing.

"Social pressure" is not a term that needs much "defining", and is not fundamental to the argument either. It is a specific case.

It certainly does. Social pressure ranges from not wearing white after labor day to not tying your children to fire hydrants when you enter a grocery store. When is social pressure worthy of violent opposition and when is it allowable?

I refuse to let go of this complexity. I refuse to reduce it to an oversimplified notion of "self-ownership", because--at least in virtually every form I have seen--such a simplification legitimates multiple means of domination.

It seems like you embrace the complexity to avoid any concrete position. It seems like your ideas of "domination" are little more than "that seems wrong to me".

Incorrect. Killing everyone would produce a more equal distribution of goods, too.

Virtually no one believes in equality of goods distribution as a matter of absolute moral principle.

Exactly, so where does your moral equality and egalitarianism end? What moral standard is more important and provides a barrier that you will not cross?

Well, it's for rich people, anyway. "Landlord can do whatever he wants cause it's his property" is hardly Anarchy. To see why, just change "Landlord" to "King" and "property" to "sovereign territory."

Different schmoe, but same exact logic.

In deed. Actually, the Andy Singer cartoon was just for purposes of snark. Libertarians and Anarchists are entirely different in purpose and theory.

Why can't they?

Because there are innumerable ways to "control" people without using physical force against them.

I have already explained why property rights over a person will exist,

And where would that be?

but perhaps you will explain how neither will remain a possibility.

Um... how about we adopt any one of innumerable moral frameworks that do not advance "self-ownership" or slavery?

Of course, but moral equality and egalitarianism is not the same thing.

One leads quite naturally to the other.

When is social pressure worthy of violent opposition

Virtually never, because usually the quantity of force necessary to solve the problem is disproportionate to the problem itself.

It seems like you embrace the complexity to avoid any concrete position.

No, my position has been concrete throughout... the problem is that any definition I give you will not be much better than any one you could find in a dictionary. I can't give you a standard that will always be easily applied to everything... human beings and human societies are complicated enough that domination and subordination manifest themselves in a wide variety of different ways.

Edit: Here's one, for what it's worth--domination is the use of power to control the lives of others against their will. Subordination is what happens to people who are dominated.

Exactly, so where does your moral equality and egalitarianism end?

Never. You are confused between two different kinds of principles.

The utilitarian "Greatest Happiest Principle" is egalitarian--everyone's happiness counts equally. But its application would not (necessarily) mean complete equality in the distribution of goods.

Libertarianism is a brilliant idea. A political approach that can never be defeated because no matter how many times it is torn apart and demonstrated to be a lot of horsecrap the next guy can go "Hey, that was Libertarianism v456. That's clearly stupid! Listen, my Libertarianism v378 has all the answers!"

/thread

So I was born in Germany, and presumably consented on the day I was born, when the State actually holds that I am unable to consent to anything at all.

Or I consented on the day I turned 18 here in Australia, despite not being an Australian citizen, by virtue of not having gone to...well, where? In building a model of government by looking at the interests/consent/actions/capabilities of individuals, I would think you would at least briefly cover just how I relate to this government and where my option to act differently was.

Look, I admit I haven't done as much reading of the classics as you have, but unless you explain to me precisely what you mean by "consent to live" (refraining from suicide?), all I can see is an excuse for government to do whatever the hell it wants, because I somehow, somewhere, sometime consented to it doing so.

Sorry, I tend to assume everyone knows their Locke. Per Locke (I'm still working on my understanding of Hobbes), consent is found in one of two ways: tacitly, you can make use of the benefits of government action, in which case you can withdraw your support by ceasing to use government-provided services, and expressely by voting and thereby ratifying the mechanism by which government makes policy. Once you've expressely consented to live under a government, the only real ways to escape the social contract (and you need to realize that this is a contract in the fullest sense: you agree to X, government agrees to Y, and both agree that on pain of breaking faith with the other and the resulting punishments entailed that they must uphold their end of the bargain) is to leave the sovergeign control of the country completely, or when the nation breaks faith with you and nullifies the contract.

Now, as for the notion of the government doing whatever the hell it wants to, that is not entirely true. The government cannot break the mechanism by which you consented to determining how government sets policy without also breaking the social contract and any obligation you have to obedience. So, for instance, when I turned 18 and agreed to the compact that a citizen of the United States lives under, namely the Constitution, I agreed to live under a society whereby citizens consent is indirectly mediated by legislative agents that I directly vote for, and those legislative agents by majority vote write policy. If President Bush suspended those elections, reduced the Legislature to figurehead status, if the Legislature through some other process than impeachment deposed President Bush, or if the status of some voters were arbitrarily and illegally reduced, they would have broken the legal means by which policy is determined, and I am no longer obligated to obey the laws they pass. So long as they maintain the system stipulated in the Constitution and ratified by me by voting, however, I am obligated even if I don't support the particular law enacted.

Libertarians find that last part galling. On occasion, so do I, such as when I see tacit acceptance of unequal treatment under law. The difference, however, is whether we translate that gall into refusal to accept the law's legitemacy; liberals accept the law's legitemacy, libertarians do not. On that score, both have some redeeming points; libertarians aren't forced to skate on the edges of the law to nominally obey it while doing everything they can to undermine it in spirit. But by the same token, liberals don't have the problem of finding some rationale for legitemate government rule, an indispensable good in some cases and a necessary evil in almost all. On balance, I share with Hobbes and Locke a desire to have the former problem rather than the latter.


A collective of mutual self-owners is not a state of nature, rather this society as a necessary "social contract" is closer to any state of nature.

As for your insistence that self-defense is so impossible as to imply the necessity of the state, I am not impressed.

Well, I'm not sure what else to say, since I doubt you are willing to allow yourself to be impressed. Hobbes is actually quite convincing on this count: all men are relatively equal, by this meaning that while one man may be smarter than another, while less strong than a third and equally charismatic as a fourth, on balance no one man is sufficiently talented as to be without weaknesses that any other man couldn't exploit. We all have to sleep, we all have to eat, we all have to depend on other people to produce goods necessary for our survival, and we are all less strong than five other men similarly armed. From this equality comes equal hope to claim the possessions of another; also equal fear of losing that which we have to all others. Such a state is better known as a condition of war even if no actual fighting goes on, because the willingness to seize upon weakness is always there. Such a state is hazardous for the men who live in it and catastrophic for any productive capacity, since anything we make instantly places us at risk of loss.

This collective of self-owners, barring some kind of post-Marxist utopian shift in thinking, doesn't escape this thinking nor the possibility of catastrophic seizure of what is mine by any and all others. I have noticed that libertarians as a unit are always those who estimate themselves superior either in armament or ability to the pablum and therefore less likely to suffer the hazards of the state of nature, but even if that were true, a society of libertarians would be equally talented and equally armed, thus reintroducing the exact same problem.

If that line of thought doesn't convince you, I doubt both that you're really thinking your presuppositions through and that you're willing to allow yourself to be convinced, but I'll also admit that's my estimations at play, and I have misjudged before. I will congratulate you on at least being honest in your anarchism; you don't suffer the cognitive dissonance of most libertarians I've met in trying to reconcile their first principles and the existence of a(ny) government that cannot coexist with them.

Well, I'm not sure what else to say, since I doubt you are willing to allow yourself to be impressed. Hobbes is actually quite convincing on this count: all men are relatively equal, by this meaning that while one man may be smarter than another, while less strong than a third and equally charismatic as a fourth, on balance no one man is sufficiently talented as to be without weaknesses that any other man couldn't exploit. We all have to sleep, we all have to eat, we all have to depend on other people to produce goods necessary for our survival, and we are all less strong than five other men similarly armed. From this equality comes equal hope to claim the possessions of another; also equal fear of losing that which we have to all others. Such a state is better known as a condition of war even if no actual fighting goes on, because the willingness to seize upon weakness is always there. Such a state is hazardous for the men who live in it and catastrophic for any productive capacity, since anything we make instantly places us at risk of loss.

This collective of self-owners, barring some kind of post-Marxist utopian shift in thinking, doesn't escape this thinking nor the possibility of catastrophic seizure of what is mine by any and all others. I have noticed that libertarians as a unit are always those who estimate themselves superior either in armament or ability to the pablum and therefore less likely to suffer the hazards of the state of nature, but even if that were true, a society of libertarians would be equally talented and equally armed, thus reintroducing the exact same problem.

Where you see weakness as creating a necessary state of predation and war, I see weakness as creating a necessary state of exchange and cooperation.

Where you see an individual who creates a thing of value as also creating a risk of loss, I see an individual who creates a thing of value as also creating a reason for others to respect his creative freedom.

When people cannot provide solely for themselves and thereby need others, they can at all times provide for their ends more effectively through peace, cooperation, and exchange than they can through violence, domination, and slavery. It is only the ideological hegemony of the necessity of violence propogated by dogmatic statist thinkers that need be overcome for people to really escape the state of nature of all against all.

This, of course, is a Marxist shift in thinking, but I guess I am just not a people ultimately suck sort of person.

If that line of thought doesn't convince you, I doubt both that you're really thinking your presuppositions through and that you're willing to allow yourself to be convinced, but I'll also admit that's my estimations at play, and I have misjudged before. I will congratulate you on at least being honest in your anarchism; you don't suffer the cognitive dissonance of most libertarians I've met in trying to reconcile their first principles and the existence of a(ny) government that cannot coexist with them.

I have let myself be convinced many times before, as I was not born nor raised libertarian, we likely just differ at a fundamental value.

And where would that be?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13205581&postcount=72

One leads quite naturally to the other.

Only if sentient beings were actually naturally equal. Value driven metaphysical wrangling aside, moral equality does not lead to egalitarianism.

Libertarianism is a brilliant idea. A political approach that can never be defeated because no matter how many times it is torn apart and demonstrated to be a lot of horsecrap the next guy can go "Hey, that was Libertarianism v456. That's clearly stupid! Listen, my Libertarianism v378 has all the answers!"

So libertarianism is like Communism?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13205581&postcount=72

You just carry the unnecessary assumption a step back.

Yes, we need rules for resolving disputes over resources. We don't need a property framework to do that, which is just one specific set of rules.

Only if sentient beings were actually naturally equal.

Human beings are naturally different. This implies absolutely nothing about the inevitability of deriving egalitarianism from moral equality.

The derivation is in fact independent of nature. It rests on the simple recognition that if we are really morally equal, we cannot elevate one person's welfare over another's.

Well, it's for rich people, anyway. "Landlord can do whatever he wants cause it's his property" is hardly Anarchy. To see why, just change "Landlord" to "King" and "property" to "sovereign territory."

Different schmoe, but same exact logic.

I made an entire thread off of that recognition. It was a pretty interesting exchange between the left anarchists and the an caps.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524881

I made an entire thread off of that recognition. It was a pretty interesting exchange between the left anarchists and the an caps.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524881

The problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is the inherent assumption that the absence of state power will leave all people in the situation of equality in terms of economic exchange. This assumption fails to recognize the fact that those who posses more economic goods to bargain with will naturally possess a greater share of bargaining power.

This is why a more equal distribution of economic bargaining power is necessary in order to achieve genuine liberty. The party which approaches the exchange from a position of inferior power necessarily approaches the transaction from a position lacking freedom.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that the left-wing has a history of augmenting the power of the state/government/collective in order to achieve a more equal distribution of material goods (by, for instance, abolishing property entirely). Naturally, this defeats the purpose of the exercise, for essentially the exact same reason that the Anarcho-Capitalist defeats his purpose.

Everybody wants to transfer power from X to Y, when they should be equalizing power between X and Y. This necessary Mutual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism (economic theory)) relationship is what leads me to my favored political ideology.

I haven't read this entire thread but...did anyone else read this thread as "what are librarians?"

You just carry the unnecessary assumption a step back.

Yes, we need rules for resolving disputes over resources. We don't need a property framework to do that, which is just one specific set of rules.

No, property is THE system for resolving disputes over scarce economic goods. There is no other.

Human beings are naturally different. This implies absolutely nothing about the inevitability of deriving egalitarianism from moral equality.

The derivation is in fact independent of nature. It rests on the simple recognition that if we are really morally equal, we cannot elevate one person's welfare over another's.

Of course, but economic egalitarianism is the elevation of one person's welfare over another, because all people are born of "different" (or unequal, six of one, half dozen of another) economic status.

The problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is the inherent assumption that the absence of state power will leave all people in the situation of equality in terms of economic exchange. This assumption fails to recognize the fact that those who posses more economic goods to bargain with will naturally possess a greater share of bargaining power.

This is why a more equal distribution of economic bargaining power is necessary in order to achieve genuine liberty. The party which approaches the exchange from a position of inferior power necessarily approaches the transaction from a position lacking freedom.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that the left-wing has a history of augmenting the power of the state/government/collective in order to achieve a more equal distribution of material goods (by, for instance, abolishing property entirely). Naturally, this defeats the purpose of the exercise, for essentially the exact same reason that the Anarcho-Capitalist defeats his purpose.

Everybody wants to transfer power from X to Y, when they should be equalizing power between X and Y. This necessary Mutual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism (economic theory)) relationship is what leads me to my favored political ideology.

The trouble is that mutualism is not an equalization of power and varies away from ancapitalism only in terms of the recognition of ownership of natural resources and whether cost should be tied to subjective value or cost of production. Considering that subjective value causes prices to naturally tend towards the cost of production, and ownership of natural resources will always tend to the use with the greatest and highest utility satisfaction, mutualism and anarcho-capitalism is generally distinguishable only by the use of certain words.

The problems of rent and unequal bargaining relations exist in both, and the solutions of mutualism are inherent within a freed capitalism.

Well, it's for rich people, anyway. "Landlord can do whatever he wants cause it's his property" is hardly Anarchy. To see why, just change "Landlord" to "King" and "property" to "sovereign territory."

Different schmoe, but same exact logic.

Unless the landlord has come to his property through just appropriation, as no king has ever come to his "sovereign territory" except through coercion.

Now, it can be debated whether the landlord has come to his property through just appropriation, or whether a landlord can exist under such circumstances, but libertarians draw a meaningful difference between the landlord and the sovereign.

No, property is THE system for resolving disputes over scarce economic goods.

Flip a coin.

because all people are born of "different" (or unequal, six of one, half dozen of another) economic status.

No, they aren't. No one is "born" with any economic status at all.

And even if they were, it still wouldn't be elevating anyone's welfare over anyone else's... it would be different treatment in accordance with different circumstances in line with not elevating anyone's welfare over anyone else's by adherence to an arbitrary distribution like nature's.

Flip a coin.

What?

No, they aren't. No one is "born" with any economic status at all.

One's genes are economic status, one's parents are economic status, one's birthday is economic status.

And even if they were, it still wouldn't be elevating anyone's welfare over anyone else's... it would be different treatment in accordance with different circumstances in line with not elevating anyone's welfare over anyone else's through adherence to an arbitrary distribution like nature's.

One cannot undo nature, one can only counteract it, and that counteraction changes the person, not his "economic status".

What?

"I want to use this piece of land today."
"But I do, too!"

So they flip a coin. That's not remotely "property."

One's genes are economic status, one's parents are economic status, one's birthday is economic status.

Now you're just equivocating.

One cannot undo nature, one can only counteract it, and that counteraction changes the person, not his "economic status".

Strangely enough, no communist argues that we should, say, gouge out the eyes of those who can see so that they're equal to the blind.

You know very well what "economic equality" means as we use it. It would be nice if you would actually discuss that.

"I want to use this piece of land today."
"But I do, too!"

So they flip a coin. That's not remotely "property."

Why not?

Now you're just equivocating.

Your genetics, your upbringing, and your age are all very strong factors on you ability to satisfy your values and means.

Strangely enough, no communist argues that we should, say, gouge out the eyes of those who can see so that they're equal to the blind.

You know very well what "economic equality" means as we use it. It would be nice if you would actually discuss that.

No, really I don't. As I said, you haven't actually posted a coherent idea of what economic equality is or how it says we should organize ourselves economically. All I know is that it is "complex" which I understand from other "anarcho-leftists". (From what I have gleened, it is "complex", because there are components of capitalism which each individual "anarchist" likes and dislikes, and so there is no real standard for building a society, just what is wrong and right about capitalism to subjective opinion)

I have been probing for your opinion this, and so far I know people shouldn't be forced to be raised collectively, and people shouldn't be forced to wear eye patches.

Should people be allowed to swing a hammer if there asn't enough to go around?

Should an artist be able to paint a more beautiful painting than anyone else and hang it in his house?

Should a farmer be able to raise sweeter fruit than anyone else?

Why not?

Because there is no person or collection of people with the deciding say over the resource.

Of course, if you want to just make any set of rules for the use of resources "property", you might be able to stretch the concept far enough, but the result is still that your original dichotomy of "I own myself" or "Others own me" is untenable.

Your genetics, your upbringing, and your age are all very strong factors on you ability to satisfy your values and means.

Maybe. So? They still have nothing to do with equality in wealth.

No one says that we can have a society where people are exactly equally happy.

No, really I don't. As I said, you haven't actually posted a coherent idea of what economic equality is or how it says we should organize ourselves economically.

Me, personally? No.

Then again, not only was this discussion started about freedom, not the specific economic form of a communist society according to Soheran, but unless you are totally ignorant of the subject (and from prior experience I'm pretty sure you aren't), you should already have a pretty good idea.

I have been probing for this, and so far I know people shouldn't be forced to be raised collectively, and people shouldn't be forced to wear eye patches.

Neither of which, of course, are in the realm of the equal distribution of wealth. As you know.

Should people be allowed to swing a hammer if there isn't enough to go around?

Probably, if it's part of their equal share of wealth.

Not everyone has to choose to get the same things.

Should an artist be able to paint a more beautiful painting than anyone else and hang it in his house.

Yes.

Should a farmer be able to raise sweeter fruit than anyone else?

Yes.

Unless the landlord has come to his property through just appropriation


The way some Anarcho-Capitalists/Libertarians talk, it would seem that they consider this "justice" an a priori given. Which, of course, it isn't.

But, with sufficient bargaining power to exploit, and the favor of the private court a landlord hires, "justice" will just be whatever the landlord says it is. How the landlord came into his authority isn't as important as is how the landlord will abuse and exploit that authority regardless of how it was established.


...as no king has ever come to his "sovereign territory" except through coercion.


Unless we manage somehow to hit the rewind button on human history and start over, exactly the same thing can be said of property. One can spend a lifetime studying all the examples of people coming into ownership of property through and because of the king's coercion.


Now, it can be debated whether the landlord has come to his property through just appropriation, or whether a landlord can exist under such circumstances, but libertarians draw a meaningful difference between the landlord and the sovereign.

True enough. But there is the noble ideal, and then there is reality. In light of reality, I see no reason to make life easier for either the landlord or the sovereign. Indeed, history is filled with too many examples of each (often hand-in-hand) destroying liberty.

The trouble is that mutualism is not an equalization of power and varies away from ancapitalism only in terms of the recognition of ownership of natural resources and whether cost should be tied to subjective value or cost of production.


One of the most important parts of the Mutualist ideology is the emphasis on collective ownership and control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) "when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors (http://www.mutualist.org/)," although it "[does] not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself (http://www.mutualist.org/)."

This emphasis on democratic ownership and control is where Mutualism provides the equalization of power.

Such a social arrangement is not necessarily impossible under Anarcho-Capitalism, however, anti-collectivist rhetoric seems so strong among its adherents that even voluntary collectivism is rejected (indeed, I've lost count of how many have told me that voluntary collective enterprise is impossible outright).

At any rate, this is a very significant ideological factor that, in the end, makes Mutualism and Anarcho-Capitalism very different.


...and the solutions of mutualism are inherent within a freed capitalism.

I might believe this if not for all the advocates of "freed capitalism" I've encountered over the years, here on NationStates and elsewhere, who insist that I am some kind of Stalin-esque totalitarian communist because I value voluntary social enterprise.

The way some Anarcho-Capitalists/Libertarians talk, it would seem that they consider this "justice" an a priori given. Which, of course, it isn't.

But, with sufficient bargaining power to exploit, and the favor of the private court a landlord hires, "justice" will just be whatever the landlord says it is. How the landlord came into his authority isn't as important as is how the landlord will abuse and exploit that authority regardless of how it was established.

Of course anarcho-capitalists do not consider justice to be whatever a landlord says it is, rather the belief is that market forces and private methods of dispute resolution will provide ample material incentive for a landlord to conform to norms of justice and self-ownership.

In a sense, anarcho-capitalism is both explored morally and materially, and from both explorations the same result is reached.

Unless we manage somehow to hit the rewind button on human history and start over, exactly the same thing can be said of property. One can spend a lifetime studying all the examples of people coming into ownership of property through and because of the king's coercion.

An understanding accepted by Marxists, Mutualists, and Austrian AnCaps.

The question becomes how do we solve this problem, with traditional Marxism on one side, and mutualists and ancaps on the other.

True enough. But there is the noble ideal, and then there is reality. In light of reality, I see no reason to make life easier for either the landlord or the sovereign. Indeed, history is filled with too many examples of each (often hand-in-hand) destroying liberty.

You won't find any disagreement from me.

One of the most important parts of the Mutualist ideology is the emphasis on collective ownership and control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) "when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors (http://www.mutualist.org/)," although it "[does] not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself (http://www.mutualist.org/)."

This emphasis on democratic ownership and control is where Mutualism provides the equalization of power.

Such a social arrangement is not necessarily impossible under Anarcho-Capitalism, however, anti-collectivist rhetoric seems so strong among its adherents that even voluntary collectivism is rejected (indeed, I've lost count of how many have told me that voluntary collective enterprise is impossible outright).

Two things:

Voluntary collectivism is based on the individualistic ideals of both left and right libertarianism.

Ancaps have no ideological opposition to collective ownership, and mutualists have no ideological opposition to wage labor.

The difference, again, is only what will arise materially based on their mutual libertarian principles.

I might believe this if not for all the advocates of "freed capitalism" I've encountered over the years, here on NationStates and elsewhere, who insist that I am some kind of Stalin-esque totalitarian communist because I value voluntary social enterprise.

Then you have encountered very poor advocates of "freed capitalism".

Such a social arrangement is not necessarily impossible under Anarcho-Capitalism, however, anti-collectivist rhetoric seems so strong among its adherents that even voluntary collectivism is rejected (indeed, I've lost count of how many have told me that voluntary collective enterprise is impossible outright).You're referring to the erroneous "When everyone owns something, nobody owns something" assertion, right?

Of course anarcho-capitalists do not consider justice to be whatever a landlord says it is, rather the belief is that market forces and private methods of dispute resolution will provide ample material incentive for a landlord to conform to norms of justice and self-ownership.


Indeed. But, again, there is the ideal, and then there is how things will actually work. And there is still the fact that in the market and other private methods, decisions will tend to favor those who possess the greatest share of bargaining power (including material wealth). Just like how decisions of the state will tend to favor those who possess the greatest share of political power/influence.

I don't intend to argue that Anarcho-Capitalists purposefully pursue corrupt "justice." I just see corrupted "justice" as a very likely outcome of the ideology, regardless of it's adherents intentions.


The question becomes how do we solve this problem, with traditional Marxism on one side, and mutualists and ancaps on the other.


There's no doubt that Mutualism is positioned far closer to Anarcho-Capitalism than Marxism.


Voluntary collectivism is based on the individualistic ideals of both left and right libertarianism.


I would argue that socialism is necessarily concerned with individual liberty. As such, voluntary collectivism is based on individualistic ideals that are fully contained within the libertarian left, independent of the right's fundamentally different conception (that individualism seems, somehow, to preclude collective action).


Then you have encountered very poor advocates of "freed capitalism".


This is my own conclusion as well.

You're referring to the erroneous "When everyone owns something, nobody owns something" assertion, right?

Combined with the usual "group decision making is necessarily Stalin-esque."

In a nutshell libertarians are anarchists with money. People who have devised a theoretical social-darwinist view of society, expecting to be among the very top in the resulting hierarchy, while never giving thought that they might in fact find themselves at the very bottom of the pyramid society they desire.

Dominating the Internet as Marxists once dominated pamphleteering, they provide useful arguments for economic freedom and against the absurdities of communism, but they are on the whole a waste of time and serious reflection, unworthy of refutation and ultimately disorganised fringe elements of the political spectrum.

You're referring to the erroneous "When everyone owns something, nobody owns something" assertion, right?

Wow, who made that assertion?

Indeed. But, again, there is the ideal, and then there is how things will actually work. And there is still the fact that in the market and other private methods, decisions will tend to favor those who possess the greatest share of bargaining power (including material wealth). Just like how decisions of the state will tend to favor those who possess the greatest share of political power/influence.

I don't intend to argue that Anarcho-Capitalists purposefully pursue corrupt "justice." I just see corrupted "justice" as a very likely outcome of the ideology, regardless of it's adherents intentions.

Like I said, this is not a matter of great significance at all.

Just to see if I can prove a point, what do you (or general mutualism) would be the necessary steps in bringing about a free and just society?

I would argue that socialism is necessarily concerned with individual liberty. As such, voluntary collectivism is based on individualistic ideals that are fully contained within the libertarian left, independent of the right's fundamentally different conception (that individualism seems, somehow, to preclude collective action).

First off, I would like to see where any real (read: Academic, mutualism doesn't suffer from the legion of idiot followers with no true conception of the ideals of the movement) libertarians have argued that individualism actually precludes collective action, outside of Randians.

From an economic view, libertarians take voluntary collectivism as ineffectual and from a practical view take unions to be at almost all times coercive against competing labor (abuse of scabs, for example). But that should certainly not be confused for hostility to voluntary collectivism.

http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/04/10/herbert-spencer-labortarian/

Section 16 of:
http://www.mises.org/reasonpapers/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf