NationStates Jolt Archive

Can left and right libertarianism ever find a "centerist libertarian" middle ground?

Basically, as I see the two camps now, both favor anti-market forces and represing economic freedoms, just in differing ways.

Left libertarianism, as I understand it, is anti-private property.

But right-libertarianism is equally represive, to my understanding, in allowing for corporatist oppression.

Is ther room for a middle ground?

Of late this has been what I;ve taken to callingh "market neutral libertarianism".


Poll options:

A: Left libertraian - property is theft
B: Left Libertarianism - other
C: Right libertarian - corporatism is OK
D: Right libertarian - other
E: I like the idea of "market neutral libertarianism"
F: Moderate authoritarian.
G Authoritarian - respect the authority!
H: ALL OTHER OPINIONS GO HERE!

maybe an mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29)? But I'm far of an expert on these matters, so I could be wrong.

Proudhon himself described the "liberty" which he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property."

EDIT: iirc there are also some anarchists which claim that people should decide for themselves which works best because almost none of these theories have been proved to work. So they want to abolish the state and let people associate according to the kind of economic model they want to follow.

I voted E "I like the idea of market neutral Libertarianism" (for the United States).


WARNING: Block of text approaching!
I would classify myself as Libertarian, but I have many "heterodox" beliefs. For example, I believe that those pursuing happiness should get happiness from the government. I also believe that the government should have an income tax and such because people are too greedy to pay otherwise. I also believe that the government should handout welfare checks BUT should check up on the person periodically and should constantly search for jobs for these people (to ensure that the lazy don't get free money).

I have the ideas of a free market when it comes to the economy. However, I would oppose the "dog-eat-dog" style of economics that Capitalism brings. Big corporations are basically getting support from the government and they in turn are supporting the government which leaves out any opinion or help to the small-time business.

Look at corporate America today. Everything is owned by giant corporations (I believe there are 4?) and small-time entrepreneurs don't even have a prayer. I can make a bakery, and if by some chance it because successful, then it'd probably be brought by ConAgra, Inc. There will always be a permanent underclass and should that underclass "revolt", they will be silenced by the Gods of American Economy.

So I say that the government should only involve itself in economics when it brings up small-time businesses to at least be able to compete with the big corporations. This probably isn't possible unless there are BIG economic reforms. Even then, the government's stance towards economics will have to shift away from Capitalism (which is very unlikely). However, this will help the economy and will have economics be more than how rich your daddy was.

But right-libertarianism is equally represive, to my understanding, in allowing for corporatist oppression.


Not necessarily, aren't those libertarians who are anti corporations AND for private property considered right libertarians as well (but even further right, as corporations to some is a sign of big government)?

Not necessarily, aren't those libertarians who are anti corporations AND for private property considered right libertarians as well (but even further right, as corporations to some is a sign of big government)?

I believe most right libertarians argue that big corporations and monopolies are only being maintained by the government (with corporate welfare, patent laws etc)

how can there be a left when it come to anarcho-capitalism? :p

Can left and right libertarianism ever find a "centerist libertarian" middle ground?Is someone considering a change of ideology? ;)

Since someone already linked to mutualism, I don't need to.

I believe most right libertarians argue that big corporations and monopolies are only being maintained by the government (with corporate welfare, patent laws etc)

Exactly. Not to mention that corporations are a legal person created by the government.

Can left and right libertarianism ever find a "centerist libertarian" middle ground?

Basically, as I see the two camps now, both favor anti-market forces and represing economic freedoms, just in differing ways.

Left libertarianism, as I understand it, is anti-private property.

But right-libertarianism is equally represive, to my understanding, in allowing for corporatist oppression.

Is ther room for a middle ground?

Of late this has been what I;ve taken to callingh "market neutral libertarianism".


Poll options:

A: Left libertraian - property is theft
B: Left Libertarianism - other
C: Right libertarian - corporatism is OK
D: Right libertarian - other
E: I like the idea of "market neutral libertarianism"
F: Moderate authoritarian.
G Authoritarian - respect the authority!
H: ALL OTHER OPINIONS GO HERE!

Left libertarianism seems like a contradiction in terms to me. If people were allowed to do their own thing, but had their property rights stripped away, how is that libertarianism?

Since someone already linked to mutualism, I don't need to.


maybe an mutualism? But I'm far of an expert on these matters, so I could be wrong.


Mutualism, the gateway ideology. Based on the simple realization that one cannot eliminate political hegemony without also eliminating economic hegemony. In fact, mutualism accomplishes exactly that by defending the right of each individual to the product of his or her labor (or "private property") through the mechanism of voluntary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Cooperative) association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management).

See also http://www.mutualist.org


Not to mention that corporations are a legal person created by the government[...]


...at the behest of the wealthy who can make the necessary payments.

A minor detail that the "Libertarian" Right likes to leave out.

...at the behest of the wealthy who can make the necessary payments.

A minor detail that the "Libertarian" right likes to leave out.

Yes, it is true that it is at the behest of wealthy people who can make the necessary payment. So what? Most wealthy people nowadays don't come from established families with a history of independence, far-sightedness and wisdom but from those who can manipulate the political system, all to the applause of the mass of idiots at the bottom who think they are being 'served.' Such a dilemma arises not from wealth in and of itself but from the acceptable methods of gaining it, in this case being manipulation of government, especially those of the democratic variety.

I don't see how anyone can call themselves libertarian with a straight face and then say that you can't have any property or economic freedom. What if I don't like what the collective is doing? What if I don't want what the collective wants? I can vote against it but if I'm in the minority then I'm as good as screwed, I'd be a slave.

Libertarianism is complete freedom in all things, the only limit being hurting others through physical attack or theft.

I don't see how anyone can call themselves libertarian with a straight face and then say that you can't have any property or economic freedom. What if I don't like what the collective is doing? What if I don't want what the collective wants? I can vote against it but if I'm in the minority then I'm as good as screwed, I'd be a slave.

Libertarianism is complete freedom in all things, the only limit being hurting others through physical attack or theft.

Meh, Left libertarians would just argue that capitalism is exploitative and oppressive in itself, and should be abolished together with state oppression, and replaced with mutual aid or something at least a little bit more democratic.
They also wouldn't force you to work for the commune because they prefer consensus decision making, you could always opt to leave the commune, but you on the other hand couldn't force them to help you. or at least that's what I've understood of it, there probably are a lot more things to be said because there are a lot different ideologies which call themselves left libertarian.

Libertarianism is complete freedom in all things, the only limit being hurting others through physical attack or theft.

What about oppression?

Let's put it this way: a free-market libertarian society can within it sustain and tolerate groups of communal property libertarians doing whatever they want.

A left libertarian society cannot within it sustain groups of free-market libertarians having little capitalist societies.

That's because free-market libertarianism is more about negative liberty, which doesn't require interaction between the two groups, while the other kind is about positive liberty, which would make it possible and necessary for outsiders to have access to the resources of this little capitalist sub-community.

Can left and right libertarianism ever find a "centerist libertarian" middle ground?

Basically, as I see the two camps now, both favor anti-market forces and represing economic freedoms, just in differing ways.

Left libertarianism, as I understand it, is anti-private property.

But right-libertarianism is equally represive, to my understanding, in allowing for corporatist oppression.

Is ther room for a middle ground?

Of late this has been what I;ve taken to callingh "market neutral libertarianism".


Poll options:

A: Left libertraian - property is theft
B: Left Libertarianism - other
C: Right libertarian - corporatism is OK
D: Right libertarian - other
E: I like the idea of "market neutral libertarianism"
F: Moderate authoritarian.
G Authoritarian - respect the authority!
H: ALL OTHER OPINIONS GO HERE!

While there are different trends among both (attitude towards unions being a notable one), right and left libertarianism differ only in respects to resources, not all property.

Prominent left-libertarians of past and present accept property in one's product, but deny any fee ownership of natural resources. Generally only usufruct property rights are allowed to this type of property, with any other property right, such as absentee landlordism and various forms of capital being unjust and a matter of state intervention. With this they tend to accept economic ideas that show that value is only found in labor, and that any price over value one takes from ownership of resources and capital is therefore stolen from the actual producer, as he is the only creator and legitimate owner of the value.

Right libertarians, on the other hand, take homesteading, the Lockean mixing of labor and property, to establish property rights in natural resources. Any non-contractual separation of the resource from the homesteader is then aggression. Absentee landlordism and most forms of capital are just under this system. With this right libertarians tend to accept economic ideas that show that human values can lead to legitimate capital ownership, principally in the form of time preference (where the employed accepts immediate satisfaction of desires in exchange for a discount on the future reward, creating profit), and therefore exploitation is not due to capital, but to government intervention and monopoly.

I think there is a middle ground that takes right-libertarian (Austrian specifically) economics and shows that even a Proudhonian contractual society would constantly tend in appearance toward a society of Rothbardian and right libertarian property rights.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "market neutral libertarianism", but that is basically the middle ground that I am on right now.

Left libertarianism seems like a contradiction in terms to me. If people were allowed to do their own thing, but had their property rights stripped away, how is that libertarianism?

I don't see how anyone can call themselves libertarian with a straight face and then say that you can't have any property or economic freedom.Perhaps because the left started using the word first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History

I don't see how anyone can call themselves libertarian with a straight face and then say that you can't have any property or economic freedom.

economic freedom and private property are mutually incompatible.

This poll makes no sense.

Most wealthy people nowadays don't come from established families with a history of independence, far-sightedness and wisdom...


Elitist mythology being exactly that.


Such a dilemma arises not from wealth in and of itself but from the acceptable methods of gaining it,


True.


...in this case being manipulation of government...


Of course, my larger point was that the wealthy constitute a class with a particularly strong interest in effecting such manipulation (even in the case of the welfare state, which is nothing more than the wealthy buying the loyalty of the less privileged). So long as there are wealthy, and so long as these people wish to remain wealthy, or gain greater heights of wealth, manipulation of government will continue. The key to stopping manipulation of government then is to eliminate the class that profits from it. Not by eliminating wealth or economic progress (or abolishing private property, as it were), but by distributing wealth and access to economic progress to the greatest number possible.


...especially those of the democratic variety.

The "democratic" variety, anyway.

Is someone considering a change of ideology? ;)

Since someone already linked to mutualism, I don't need to.

Not so much considering a change, but rather looking for a framework that better fits changes that have already occured. :)

economic freedom and private property are mutually incompatible.

Why even toss that out there?

Thank you for posting another two-dimensional invented political spectrum thread. Today's pithy reply: "Pigeonholes are for pigeons, not people."
We now return you to your bellybutton gazing.

I feel that the world should know that I am a center-libertarian.

That is all.

Yes, it is true that it is at the behest of wealthy people who can make the necessary payment. So what? Most wealthy people nowadays don't come from established families with a history of independence, far-sightedness and wisdom but from those who can manipulate the political system, all to the applause of the mass of idiots at the bottom who think they are being 'served.' Such a dilemma arises not from wealth in and of itself but from the acceptable methods of gaining it, in this case being manipulation of government, especially those of the democratic variety.

When did wealth come from established families with a history of independence, far sightedness, and wisdom? From what I recall of history most of the upper-class in olden times got their wealth from war, conquest, imperialism, mercantilist policies , favors from the monarch or aristocracy, ect.

Greil?

Elitist mythology being exactly that.

Even today there is a clear demarcation between the wastefulness of nouveaux riche, whose wealth tends to be a one-time occurence to be squandered by their immediate descendants, and old families such as the Rothschildes that have preserved their wealth throughout the ages and tend more towards conservative use of their wealth. Unfortunately, any man can be made wealthy by the state, and so any fool can make and lose money regardless of his personal virtue, while those whose wealth lies outside of state sanction will find it removed for political convenience.

Of course, my larger point was that the wealthy constitute a class with a particularly strong interest in effecting such manipulation (even in the case of the welfare state, which is nothing more than the wealthy buying the loyalty of the less privileged). So long as there are wealthy, and so long as these people wish to remain wealthy, or gain greater heights of wealth, manipulation of government will continue. The key to stopping manipulation of government then is to eliminate the class that profits from it. Not by eliminating wealth or economic progress (or abolishing private property, as it were), but by distributing wealth and access to economic progress to the greatest number possible.

So long as there are people who are dependent upon the use of parasitic accumulation of wealth, those people will tend to defend such methods. Those who create wealth through legitimate means will defend these legitimate means against those who would remove them (See the conflict between those who would uphold customary law and those who demand fiat, legislative law.) The key is not to have some political redistribution, which will only benefit those who have political connection (see iron triangles), but to get out of the way of those who use the economic means of wealth accumulation and thus encourage such useful methods in general.

The "democratic" variety, anyway.

There is no need for the quotation marks. The foundation of democracy is the inveterate ignorance of the masses, their desire led into a false state of security by the shrill and hysterical propaganda of their masters and the need to conform to the ways of others for acceptance. This complies perfectly with their manipulation by virtuosos out for their own gain at the expense of the sheep.

When did wealth come from established families with a history of independence, far sightedness, and wisdom? From what I recall of history most of the upper-class in olden times got their wealth from war, conquest, imperialism, mercantilist policies , favors from the monarch or aristocracy, ect.

Greil?

Look at the evolution of customary law, in which people would entrust their liberties through reciprocal obligations to those respected in the community. The Kapauku Papuans of New Guinea and their tonowi are just one example. It is only through the rise of the state and the dispensing of privileges through legislation that such a trend was caused (see the alliance of kings and the bourgeoise.)

And Greill has two L's.

Can left and right libertarianism ever find a "centerist libertarian" middle ground?

Basically, as I see the two camps now, both favor anti-market forces and represing economic freedoms, just in differing ways.

Left libertarianism, as I understand it, is anti-private property.

But right-libertarianism is equally represive, to my understanding, in allowing for corporatist oppression.

Is ther room for a middle ground?

Of late this has been what I;ve taken to callingh "market neutral libertarianism".


Poll options:

A: Left libertraian - property is theft
B: Left Libertarianism - other
C: Right libertarian - corporatism is OK
D: Right libertarian - other
E: I like the idea of "market neutral libertarianism"
F: Moderate authoritarian.
G Authoritarian - respect the authority!
H: ALL OTHER OPINIONS GO HERE!

There are some flaws in your post concerning libertarian principles. The thing that links all schools of libertarianism together is that they are all based upon individualism, where the rights of the individual are given priority over collective and utilitarian ideals.

Libertarians do not fit onto the left-right political scale. To be plotted accurately on a scale a 2-dimensional plane is required with a measure of personal liberty making the x-axis and a measure of economic liberty making up the y-axis. The extreme corner of that plane where individuals have a maximum of both personal and economic freedom would be the plot point for libertarianism. The opposite end where those rights are completely dictated by some form of state would be statism or fascism. The "left" corner would be where personal rights are left to the individual while economic matters of property and trade are left to the state would be the plot point for extreme liberals. The "right" corner with the opposite viewpoint of the "left" would be where you plot an extreme conservative.

The "left libertarian" you describe is also called an anarcho-communist. In anarcho-communism, private property ceases to exist. An-Comms are against the institution of private property for two reasons. First, they believe that private property requires a state to be enforced. The other reason is that they believe that in trade of private property the person who "owns" the property inherently has a position of leverage over the other party of a trade, which goes against the anti-hierarchical ideals of anarchy.

Not to be confused modern socialism and communism, where the idea of property is not eliminated, private property just becomes property of the state.

What you describe as "right" libertarians would include minarchists and market anarchists. These schools of thought differ from the an-comm in that they believe individual autonomy extends into property, and they believe that when property is owned by a collective, the individual becomes subjugated under that collective.

To make an additional note, minarchists and market anarchists are generally against the idea of "corporate identity", where a corporation has the same rights an individual has. So you could call the "right libertarian" a capitalist but not a corporatist

Look at the evolution of customary law, in which people would entrust their liberties through reciprocal obligations to those respected in the community. The Kapauku Papuans of New Guinea and their tonowi are just one example. It is only through the rise of the state and the dispensing of privileges through legislation that such a trend was caused (see the alliance of kings and the bourgeoise.)

You do realize that many of the traditional societies on Papua New Guinea had, and often still have, high homicide rates? Customary law does not work with outsiders who do not share one's customs. It hasn't been much use in modern economies. If companies decide to have a mutually agreed upon arbitrator it is only in the backdrop of common or civil lae property rights and contract law.

economic freedom and private property are mutually incompatible.

ROFLMAO!

Greil?Good call. I totally should've gotten that one.

Pffft. I made a good point, explained why it is that you have left libertarians attacking right libertarians but not the other way around (at least if they're reasonable and on anything other than a purely theoretical level), and everyone ignores me. :p

Pffft. I made a good point, explained why it is that you have left libertarians attacking right libertarians but not the other way around (at least if they're reasonable and on anything other than a purely theoretical level), and everyone ignores me. :pOkay, I'll respond to it.
If the left-libertarians wanted to break off from a right-libertarian enclave, would they have to play by the right-libertarian rules in doing so? I mean, would they have to purchase the land they're living on? Or would they be allowed to squat on someone else's land and break off that way?

If the left-libertarians wanted to break off from a right-libertarian enclave, would they have to play by the right-libertarian rules in doing so? I mean, would they have to purchase the land they're living on? Or would they be allowed to squat on someone else's land and break off that way?
Are you saying it is in fact not possible to be a left-libertarian without requiring the use of unearned stuff?

In practical terms, in order to prevent clashes of interests, yes, the left-libertarians might have to pool their resources and purchase a bit of land. That in no way compromises their position or the future of their commune. It doesn't prevent them from creating it either, since "breaking off" presupposes that they're part of the right-libertarian enclave to begin with and therefore have some private property they can bring into the left-libertarian commune, just as they bring their bodies and minds.

The same cannot be said for the opposite case, because the incursion (or potential incursion) into what right-libertarians must consider their private property would have to be continuous and unending.

So far, from what I've read, the basic conceptions of left and right libertarianism are fundamentally right. But Right libertarianism is not repressive at all because Isidoor was right, that a real libertarian will favor a completely free market-void of all gov't regulation and interference- and that free market will not allow for monopolies. Very very very broadly and generally speaking, a free market will correct itsself and won't have any higher forces (other than the forces of mutual players in the market) contributing to the favoritism we see today in the US economy for instance. \

Also, left libertarianism is still collectivism, so I fail to see how the basic underlying issue of economic desoptism is resolved.
I know it's corny but I love the very basic and simple ISIL flash intro to liberty.

I advise all those intrested in liberty or those who need clearifacations to go to:http://www.isil.org

Preserve your rights by using them!
DO NOT TREAD ON ME!!!:D

Are you saying it is in fact not possible to be a left-libertarian without requiring the use of unearned stuff?


Actually, I imagine his argument is that one cannot be a left-libertarian without separating others from their unearned stuff.

I feel that the world should know that I am a center-libertarian.

That is all.

Well, having just gone and done the (yes, I know - flawed) Political Compass test again my curent scores are:
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

Can left and right libertarianism ever find a "centerist libertarian" middle ground?

Basically, as I see the two camps now, both favor anti-market forces and represing economic freedoms, just in differing ways.

Left libertarianism, as I understand it, is anti-private property.

But right-libertarianism is equally represive, to my understanding, in allowing for corporatist oppression.

Is ther room for a middle ground?

Of late this has been what I;ve taken to callingh "market neutral libertarianism".


Poll options:

A: Left libertraian - property is theft
B: Left Libertarianism - other
C: Right libertarian - corporatism is OK
D: Right libertarian - other
E: I like the idea of "market neutral libertarianism"
F: Moderate authoritarian.
G Authoritarian - respect the authority!
H: ALL OTHER OPINIONS GO HERE!

i have not taken the time to read all the other posts yet. I must say that the thought of a leftist libertarian is sort of like the thought of a purple and pink striped zebra. All libertarians are by their very nature right wingers. I considermyself to be a human rights warhawk/environmentalist libertarian. I am not sure where that places me in the spectrum of things but I think that libertarianism in general is about as right wing as you get without being a crazy eyed radical survivalist anarchist.

Libertarians are to the right in the sense that the often conflicting goals of equality (lefties) and liberty (right wingers) are resolved by a strong tendency towards emphasizing liberty. Property rights are an example of the libertarian emphasis on liberty.

Although Libertarians tend to focus on free markets a bit too much, I do not think that environmentalist goals are necessarily outside of libertarianism. The key is to recognize that the market is the most efficient way of allocating scarce resources but that some regulation is necessary for the proper internalization of costs.

My main gripe with American Libertarianism is that they want US military activities to only consist of military bases on US soil with no foreign bases or foreign wars. I find it disgusting and cowardly for a party that is so keen on liberty to not do all it can to advance liberty all over the world so that none of our fellow human beings need be tortured or imprisoned for political or religious beliefs at the very least.

I am an anarcho-right-left-centre-neo-paleo-anti-pro-environmentalist-corporatist-objectivist-subjectivist-Machiavellian
-Randist-Malthusian-Marxist-republican-democrat-liberal-conservative-traditionalist-progressive-Barney the Purple Dinosaur-capitalist-communist-socialist-moderate-authoritarian-radical-reactionary-ninja-zombie-pirate-viking libertarian.

If anyone needs me, I'll be running for President of the United States.

Why even toss that out there?

for kicks. and because the argument has been made at length elsewhere.
in any case, the freedom involved in the pro-capitalism use of the term 'economic freedom' is either incoherent or just plain odd. for example, it results in slavery being an instance of freedom, as long as the slave-to-be 'voluntarily' agrees to it.

Are you saying it is in fact not possible to be a left-libertarian without requiring the use of unearned stuff?

In practical terms, in order to prevent clashes of interests, yes, the left-libertarians might have to pool their resources and purchase a bit of land. That in no way compromises their position or the future of their commune. It doesn't prevent them from creating it either, since "breaking off" presupposes that they're part of the right-libertarian enclave to begin with and therefore have some private property they can bring into the left-libertarian commune, just as they bring their bodies and minds.

The same cannot be said for the opposite case, because the incursion (or potential incursion) into what right-libertarians must consider their private property would have to be continuous and unending.If the left-libertarians will need to make an arrangement with the right-libertarians in order to coexist peacefully, why is it a big deal if the right-libertarians need to make an arrangement with the left-libertarians in order to coexist peacefully?

But Right libertarianism is not repressive at all because Isidoor was right, that a real libertarian will favor a completely free market-void of all gov't regulation and interference- and that free market will not allow for monopolies. Very very very broadly and generally speaking, a free market will correct itsself and won't have any higher forces (other than the forces of mutual players in the market) contributing to the favoritism we see today in the US economy for instance.Simply because both people making a deal get what they want doesn't mean they're getting equal benefit from the deal.

Simply because both people making a deal get what they want doesn't mean they're getting equal benefit from the deal.


This is only true if there are market inefficiencies. Libertarians may disagree about other issues but I am pretty sure that 99.99% of us Libertarians believe in the value of an efficient marketplace. I really do not understand the concept of the anti-property leftist Libertarian. I think what these posters are really talking about are socialists or communists that believe in personal liberties outside of the right to own and use personal property.

Here are the fundamentals of libertarianism (if anybody wants to add or remove something I would be interested in reading your responses):
1. The belief that it is best to seek the greatest good for the greatest number. In contrast to communitarians we believe that the greatest number is "one". We believe that when the rubber hits the road the most important thing is the rights and freedom of the individual.
2. Humanity was born with the right to swing our fists as much as we wish so long as our fists do not contact someone else without their consent.
3. A government governs best that governs least. The government should not be involved in any matter that can be handled by a free market.
4. The right to enter into contracts should only be infringed upon when absolutely necessary.
5. People should be free to use their property as they see fit (there is some disagreement here when it comes to environmentalism). If people wish to give their money to charity, that is their right. However, the state may not take money from the citizen and put the money to some charitable purpose.

You do realize that many of the traditional societies on Papua New Guinea had, and often still have, high homicide rates? Customary law does not work with outsiders who do not share one's customs. It hasn't been much use in modern economies. If companies decide to have a mutually agreed upon arbitrator it is only in the backdrop of common or civil lae property rights and contract law.

Well, yes, now of course they would because of the pernicious effects of imperialism and its weakening of liberal custom. But you are wrong on the other count; when Leopold Popisil studied the Kapauku Papuans, he was utterly amazed at how peaceful they were, and how their stateless society rarely led to violence. And actually, customary law HAS been used recently and adapted to others, in the form of merchant law, which was adapted to be used all across Europe and in America as well, in 1800s mining camps and wagon trails among strangers, and a variety of other places using arbiters and custom instead of bloated statist adjudicators, and much more efficiently as well. In fact, even today 75% of commercial disputes are settled without the use of bloated statist courts but through arbiters through reference to business custom and practice.*

It is not customary law that is useless in modern society. It is legislative law, spurred by amoral rent-seekers and the naive, hysterical masses who are deceived into thinking they are served rather than done injury, that has been a menace to the modern economy and have sapped it through its special network of privileges and the threat of the initiation of violence.

*Jerold S. Auerbach, Justice Without Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 113.

Actually, I imagine his argument is that one cannot be a left-libertarian without separating others from their unearned stuff.
Heh, I suppose. Though I would have thought that if there is one thing a left-libertarian would recognise, it's the effort and time put into discovering, mapping and developing a piece of land. Where does that labour go, if the only reward possible is a reward from nature itself, as it were, but everyone else is free to use it in your stead?

If the left-libertarians will need to make an arrangement with the right-libertarians in order to coexist peacefully, why is it a big deal if the right-libertarians need to make an arrangement with the left-libertarians in order to coexist peacefully?
The nature of the agreement is vital though. In the first case, it's a one-time thing: I give the previous owner money, everyone else refrains from entering onto the property and disturbing our commune.

In the second case, it's not just a one-off thing. Firstly, you can't make an agreement with anyone, because no one owns anything. There is no one you could talk to in order to get the exclusive posession of that piece of land, which you need to be free of physical interference. Secondly, even if you had secured use of the land, none of the things right-libertarians on it would consider their private property would actually be safe from left-libertarians outside needing it and using it accordingly. Private property can be communal property, all it takes is an agreement between the parties - for example in a family. But communal property cannot be private property. It's a matter of ordering things so that both are possible.

This is only true if there are market inefficiencies.Not at all. The person selling their seed corn gets less marginal utility from it than the person buying it.

Here are the fundamentals of libertarianism Of right-libertarianism, perhaps.

Heh, I suppose. Though I would have thought that if there is one thing a left-libertarian would recognise, it's the effort and time put into discovering, mapping and developing a piece of land. Where does that labour go, if the only reward possible is a reward from nature itself, as it were, but everyone else is free to use it in your stead?The reward is the increased use you get from it.

The nature of the agreement is vital though. In the first case, it's a one-time thing: I give the previous owner money, everyone else refrains from entering onto the property and disturbing our commune.

In the second case, it's not just a one-off thing. Firstly, you can't make an agreement with anyone, because no one owns anything. There is no one you could talk to in order to get the exclusive posession of that piece of land, which you need to be free of physical interference.You can make an arrangement with the community, and surrounding communities (depending on how big the plot of land is).

Secondly, even if you had secured use of the land, none of the things right-libertarians on it would consider their private property would actually be safe from left-libertarians outside needing it and using it accordingly. Private property can be communal property, all it takes is an agreement between the parties - for example in a family. But communal property cannot be private property. It's a matter of ordering things so that both are possible.There's no particular reason to believe a community wouldn't make an arrangement with someone to develop private property if they thought it was in their best interest to do so.

The reward is the increased use you get from it.
But if everyone else gets the same increased use, then the criterion of "ownership" is not the labour, but the usage. So where does the labour go?

You can make an arrangement with the community, and surrounding communities (depending on how big the plot of land is).
Which supposes that there is some representative party acting on behalf of the community, which implies that something approaching a government exists, which begs the question of what happens if one outvoted member of that left-libertarian community would really like that box of insulin that someone in the right-libertarian community considers his private property. Will the left-libertarian communal leadership tell that diabetic to bugger off and find insulin somewhere else? If he tries to steal it, will the left-libertarian leadership stop him or punish him?

There's no particular reason to believe a community wouldn't make an arrangement with someone to develop private property if they thought it was in their best interest to do so.
And yet, if it came to it, there would be no problem if the lefties wanted to take the stuff the righties had accumulated. There is no reason why they shouldn't, the arrangement is a purely temporary, one-sided affair. There is no obligation, moral or legal, to honour it.

In the opposite case, a right-libertarian person could not then go and violate the left-libertarian commune, because he would be violating private property. But the left-libertarian commune couldn't recognise any sort of private property and would find itself in difficulties if it had to enforce it - hence its leadership cannot credibly grant this right-libertarian group the right to exist.

You'd end up with a piece of land on which this ancap society exists, and various outsiders walking in and out, using property at will or to satisfy whatever they declare to be their need today. And the left-libertarians can't stop these outsiders, nor can they actually disagree with them, because it cannot recognise that the right-libertarians have an exclusive property right to the stuff on this piece of land that warrants defending against others.

But if everyone else gets the same increased use, then the criterion of "ownership" is not the labour, but the usage. So where does the labour go?The labor makes the usage more efficient, especially if a single person or smaller group of people is who is using the particular resource.

Which supposes that there is some representative party acting on behalf of the community, which implies that something approaching a government exists, The directly democratic body via which the community makes decisions, yes

which begs the question of what happens if one outvoted member of that left-libertarian community would really like that box of insulin that someone in the right-libertarian community considers his private property. Will the left-libertarian communal leadership tell that diabetic to bugger off and find insulin somewhere else? If he tries to steal it, will the left-libertarian leadership stop him or punish him?If there is an agreement between the two communities, there's no particular reason why the left-libs wouldn't tell that guy that the stuff in the nearby community is off limits. The leftist community wouldn't punish him specifically, as the use of punishment requires a state apparatus, but it seems possible that some type of restitution arrangement or other agreement might be worked out.

And yet, if it came to it, there would be no problem if the lefties wanted to take the stuff the righties had accumulated. There is no reason why they shouldn't, the arrangement is a purely temporary, one-sided affair. There is no obligation, moral or legal, to honour it.Of course there is - because the leftists agreed to do so. If they don't live up to their word, why should people in other neighboring communities trust them?

In the opposite case, a right-libertarian person could not then go and violate the left-libertarian commune, because he would be violating private property.So?

But the left-libertarian commune couldn't recognise any sort of private property and would find itself in difficulties if it had to enforce it - hence its leadership cannot credibly grant this right-libertarian group the right to exist.

You'd end up with a piece of land on which this ancap society exists, and various outsiders walking in and out, using property at will or to satisfy whatever they declare to be their need today. And the left-libertarians can't stop these outsiders, nor can they actually disagree with them, because it cannot recognise that the right-libertarians have an exclusive property right to the stuff on this piece of land that warrants defending against others.They don't need to recognize private property, but they could easily recognize that there will be resources that people outside of their community will be using. Some of those resources would be used by other leftist communities, but others might be used by individuals within those communities or outside them, or even a right-libertarian community.

Well, yes, now of course they would because of the pernicious effects of imperialism and its weakening of liberal custom. But you are wrong on the other count; when Leopold Popisil studied the Kapauku Papuans, he was utterly amazed at how peaceful they were, and how their stateless society rarely led to violence.

No. All hunter-gatherer/horticulturists have high homicide rates. Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. Imperialism has little to nothing to do with it.

And actually, customary law HAS been used recently and adapted to others, in the form of merchant law, which was adapted to be used all across Europe and in America as well, in 1800s mining camps and wagon trails among strangers, and a variety of other places using arbiters and custom instead of bloated statist adjudicators, and much more efficiently as well. In fact, even today 75% of commercial disputes are settled without the use of bloated statist courts but through arbiters through reference to business custom and practice.*

Merchant Law existed as an adjunct to feudal, common, and civil law. No society was actually run by it. It existed within the context of war, conquest, and all that good stuff.


It is not customary law that is useless in modern society. It is legislative law, spurred by amoral rent-seekers and the naive, hysterical masses who are deceived into thinking they are served rather than done injury, that has been a menace to the modern economy and have sapped it through its special network of privileges and the threat of the initiation of violence.

Public Choice economics would describe rent-seekers as no more amoral than your customary law users. Also, given that customary law is bottom-up driven it would be more likely to fall to demagoguery since the hysterical masses are the primary force, they are the bottom after all.

Right libertarian.

The labor makes the usage more efficient, especially if a single person or smaller group of people is who is using the particular resource.
But there is no reward for the fact that it is you and not another user who has put in this effort. Basically, if there is no possibility of excluding others from the land you worked, then whether or not you did the work in the first place is not a decisive factor in your quality of life. If someone else did the work you did, you would be receiving almost the same benefits but for a lot smaller cost.

The directly democratic body via which the community makes decisions, yes
So if the left-lib leadership constrains the positive liberty of its members in order to uphold capitalism outside the community...can you call them libertarian? Aren't they just like any government, enforcing its own interests on its subjects?

If there is an agreement between the two communities, there's no particular reason why the left-libs wouldn't tell that guy that the stuff in the nearby community is off limits.
So basically the left-libs would no longer be committed to the maximisation of this positive, real freedom, or indeed to that diabetics chance for survival - and for no other reason than that some people declared themselves right-libertarians and selfishly keep a bunch of stuff.

So?
So you can't be a right-lib and fail to respect private property rights. I'm not sure whether you can be a left-lib and do respect them.

They don't need to recognize private property, but they could easily recognize that there will be resources that people outside of their community will be using.
But doesn't that have all sorts of implications for the way people's relationship with things is viewed? Especially if this leadership then goes ahead and enforces its view?

for kicks. and because the argument has been made at length elsewhere.
in any case, the freedom involved in the pro-capitalism use of the term 'economic freedom' is either incoherent or just plain odd. for example, it results in slavery being an instance of freedom, as long as the slave-to-be 'voluntarily' agrees to it.

I tend to find the opposite to be true, as I am not aware of any non-libertarian (because "pro-capitalistic" notions of freedom, namely voluntarism, contractarianism, and self ownership, are consistent with many non-capitalistic notions of freedom, with only different treatment of certain economic goods) that is consistent or coherent. They tend to be a grab-bag of "know-it-when I see it" subjective value judgments with little or no basic, underlying principles. It is then a great irony that the gravest error most of these individuals commit is to fail to grasp the conclusions that one must reach when one understands that values are subjective.


Also, how can anything be free that is not voluntary, and how can anything voluntary not be free?! Obviously, you don't believe that one is bound from freely casting himself into servitude.

and how can anything voluntary not be free?!

because mere agreement doesn't make something free. you accept this in cases where the freedom-excluding conditions on agreement are things like having a gun to the head. but there are situations where people find themselves in such a horrible position that anything looks better than what they have. people do put themselves and their children into slavery, for example. since the resulting condition is clearly not free, the voluntary submission to it must either not be enough to constitute freedom or we must say that it isn't really voluntary. but the distinction that would allow such a move must be about power disparities.

No. All hunter-gatherer/horticulturists have high homicide rates. Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. Imperialism has little to nothing to do with it.

Well, if you'd like to, you can go and tell Leopold Popisil (or one of his descendants, I'm not sure if he's alive) that he was just imagining his empirical observations, since you seem to think you know more by sitting down than he saw for himself.

Merchant Law existed as an adjunct to feudal, common, and civil law. No society was actually run by it. It existed within the context of war, conquest, and all that good stuff.

Merchant law actually existed to AVOID the annoyances of statist courts in Europe, with its own independent scheme of adjudication (such as no appeals because they were too costly), and used ostracism as its method of enforcement like other customary law systems. And although no country was run by merchant law, it isn't the only customary law; medieval Ireland, medieval Iceland, the Kapauku Papuans, colonial Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay communities, ethnic communities in America (some even to this day), etc. were run by customary law instead of legislative law.

Public Choice economics would describe rent-seekers as no more amoral than your customary law users. Also, given that customary law is bottom-up driven it would be more likely to fall to demagoguery since the hysterical masses are the primary force, they are the bottom after all.

No, rent-seekers are amoral because they impose a legal barrier to the entry of the field of jurisdiction through the threat of violence, and then use this monopoly to steal. Also, customary law is more immune to demagoguery because while democracy depends upon the use of pervasive political machines to lionize evil men who the general public don't even know in order to help them steal, social authorities in customary law interact personally with all those whom they deal with and would lose their goodwill in the face of ostracism and social sanction in the very tightly-knit communities in which they would live, should they fail to live up to expectations.

because mere agreement doesn't make something free. you accept this in cases where the freedom-excluding conditions on agreement are things like having a gun to the head. but there are situations where people find themselves in such a horrible position that anything looks better than what they have. people do put themselves and their children into slavery, for example. since the resulting condition is clearly not free, the voluntary submission to it must either not be enough to constitute freedom or we must say that it isn't really voluntary. but the distinction that would allow such a move must be about power disparities.

Exactly, it is not a question of whether voluntary slavery is just, you agree with the capitalists on that one, I would guess. You just disagree with what can be counted as voluntary. Libertarians tend to address this with self-ownership and non-aggression, how do you know when something is voluntary? Do you have some guiding principle or do you just think "Oh nobody would agree to that" and decide it is unjust?

Well, if you'd like to, you can go and tell Leopold Popisil (or one of his descendants, I'm not sure if he's alive) that he was just imagining his empirical observations, since you seem to think you know more by sitting down than he saw for himself.

Meh, he may have had an overly romantic view of hunter-gatheres. I wonder how he'd respond to Pinker's citations of a number of studies refuting the myth of the noble savage.

Merchant law actually existed to AVOID the annoyances of statist courts in Europe, with its own independent scheme of adjudication (such as no appeals because they were too costly), and used ostracism as its method of enforcement like other customary law systems.

Did I say they weren't? Even though they were put into place to avoid state courts they did not supplant them and ultimately fell.

[And although no country was run by merchant law, it isn't the only customary law; medieval Ireland, medieval Iceland, the Kapauku Papuans, colonial Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay communities, ethnic communities in America (some even to this day), etc. were run by customary law instead of legislative law.

All small tightly knit communities that rarely exist and the ethnic groups that do exist, the AMish and Hutterites mainly, with customary law exist with the context of US and Canadian law.



No, rent-seekers are amoral because they impose a legal barrier to the entry of the field of jurisdiction through the threat of violence, and then use this monopoly to steal.

They are not amoral. Public economics describes people's behaviors in politics using the tools of economics. Rent seekers are not amoral because they are responding to incentives within the system.


Also, customary law is more immune to demagoguery because while democracy depends upon the use of pervasive political machines to lionize evil men who the general public don't even know in order to help them steal, social authorities in customary law interact personally with all those whom they deal with and would lose their goodwill in the face of ostracism and social sanction in the very tightly-knit communities in which they would live, should they fail to live up to expectations.

So basically customary law exist only in tightly knit small communities. This is far from how modern society is run

Meh, he may have had an overly romantic view of hunter-gatheres. I wonder how he'd respond to Pinker's citations of a number of studies refuting the myth of the noble savage.

He'd probably say that, on the basis of his empirical and detailed observations, that Pinker was pretty much wrong. And it would be awfully hard to maintain romantic views of hunter-gatherers if he saw them actively killing each other- which they didn't.

Did I say they weren't? Even though they were put into place to avoid state courts they did not supplant them and ultimately fell.

They didn't fall- they still exist through the use of business arbitration. The state really can't out-competes anything fairly; it just strangles everything that opposes it through the manipulation of crisis to expand its power.

All small tightly knit communities that rarely exist and the ethnic groups that do exist, the AMish and Hutterites mainly, with customary law exist with the context of US and Canadian law.

Iceland and Ireland weren't just one small community; they were a whole patchwork of them. And there were and are more than just the Amish and Hutterite people; it also includes the Chinese in Chinatown, the Jews who used rabbinical law (which, by the way, isn't influenced by American and Canadian legislative law as you might well know), Scandinavians in Minnesota, etc. who used their own customs over bloated statist courts. And in earlier history cities allowed each particular group of people to govern themselves according to their own custom, such as in Antioch.

They are not amoral. Public economics describes people's behaviors in politics using the tools of economics. Rent seekers are not amoral because they are responding to incentives within the system.

It's not their fault that they're making meaningless wars, conscripting, stealing through taxes, giving themselves special privileges and using the threat of force to beat down their foes. It's just the incentives in the system.

So basically customary law exist only in tightly knit small communities. This is far from how modern society is run

Who says that there cannot be tightly-knit small communities in modern America, considering that one can look back on cities like Antioch or the ethnic groups in major American cities? Besides, the only reason modern society is not tightly-knit is because of the state's destruction of all opposing social authorities, such as religion and the family, through its irrational laws.

But there is no reward for the fact that it is you and not another user who has put in this effort. Basically, if there is no possibility of excluding others from the land you worked, then whether or not you did the work in the first place is not a decisive factor in your quality of life. If someone else did the work you did, you would be receiving almost the same benefits but for a lot smaller cost.So, for instance, planting some seeds and eating the crops that grow from those seeds as much of your sustenance is not a decisive factor in your quality of life?

So if the left-lib leadership constrains the positive liberty of its members in order to uphold capitalism outside the community...can you call them libertarian? Aren't they just like any government, enforcing its own interests on its subjects?Possibly, but they aren't a state, which is the important part.

So basically the left-libs would no longer be committed to the maximisation of this positive, real freedom, or indeed to that diabetics chance for survival - and for no other reason than that some people declared themselves right-libertarians and selfishly keep a bunch of stuff.It could be that the neighboring communities decide that negative freedom is more greatly enhanced by allowing secession. Since 'positive' and 'negative' freedoms are equally important, both types must be taken into account.
It could also be that allowing secession prevents war. Dying in a war significantly reduces all types of freedom.

So you can't be a right-lib and fail to respect private property rights. I'm not sure whether you can be a left-lib and do respect them.Who's to say that all of the people living in the right-lib community actually believe in the ideology? Who's to say some of the right-libs wouldn't become hypocrites if it looked like their community was about to collapse?
Left-libs don't typically respect private property rights, but we will usually respect the agreements we make, which are arguably more important.

But doesn't that have all sorts of implications for the way people's relationship with things is viewed? Especially if this leadership then goes ahead and enforces its view?Certainly. If two people (or groups) can't come to an agreement over a piece of land and how to use it, what happens?

I believe that at least we're on the same page in terms of realising the stupidity and horrific consequences of concentrated, abstracted power. Representative Democracy is a ridiculous sham which shouldn't even really have the word democracy in it. Your options are either to opt out, or vote for Moron-In-A-Suit A or B who you'll probably never meet yet will be able to make all the decisions which will massively impact on your life.

Decentralisation forces power back into the hands of the people it directly effects, the voter.

Btw, the primary essence of Anarchism is voluntary participation. If you were unhappy with the way a group, collective or otherwise was functioning, you could leave of your own free volition. Conversely, it would be utterly perverse for an Anarchist to "force" their freedom on somebody else. Thusly, if there was for example a collective which did not recognise property rights and a mutualist syndicate or something which did, they could simply choose not to interact or offer services for each other. If they were serious about being decentralised and free will then they'd just have to accept the other's opinion. I'm not imagining some hippy dippy bullshit here. People would be able to take care of themselves and self-defend if some statist motherfucker tried to force them to join their idiotic crushing system, they just would not resort to violence to convince others. Why bother?

Logically, if the Anarcho-Capitalists had something the collective wanted or visa versa, people could either choose to join the group or seek resources from elsewhere. The great thing about potential confederation in our modern society being that instantaneous lines of communication do exist which would allow for way more options being open to certain Anarchist groups seeking out others who could supply them with what they needed.

If the left-libertarians will need to make an arrangement with the right-libertarians in order to coexist peacefully, why is it a big deal if the right-libertarians need to make an arrangement with the left-libertarians in order to coexist peacefully?

Simply because both people making a deal get what they want doesn't mean they're getting equal benefit from the deal.

People won't enter into an agreement or contract unless both sides percieve some sort of benefit from the transaction. If there would not be a benefit, then it might be called charity-in which case both sides have to be free and willing participants.

Does the benefit have to be equal? No, but I fail to see how damage would occur if coercion, force, or fraud is absent from the equation.

He'd probably say that, on the basis of his empirical and detailed observations, that Pinker was pretty much wrong. And it would be awfully hard to maintain romantic views of hunter-gatherers if he saw them actively killing each other- which they didn't.

Pinker's view is based on a number of studies of a number of cultures, including Papuan New Guineans.

They didn't fall- they still exist through the use of business arbitration. The state really can't out-competes anything fairly; it just strangles everything that opposes it through the manipulation of crisis to expand its power.

The state out competed it as an ecological niche. Anyway do you have proof that modern business arbitration uses precedents handed down from merchent law long ago?

Iceland and Ireland weren't just one small community; they were a whole patchwork of them. And there were and are more than just the Amish and Hutterite people; it also includes the Chinese in Chinatown, the Jews who used rabbinical law (which, by the way, isn't influenced by American and Canadian legislative law as you might well know), Scandinavians in Minnesota, etc. who used their own customs over bloated statist courts. And in earlier history cities allowed each particular group of people to govern themselves according to their own custom, such as in Antioch.

I didn't say they were all one community, but they were made up of them. Jews who use rabbinical law, and all the other ethnic groups were still subject to US and Canadian law.

In Antioch the groups were still sunject to state law when there were problems between group and they still ultimately had to bow down to the rulers of the city. In any case. In any case I can hardly see why you enjoy illiberal groups holding power. The ethnic groups were not well known for letting diversity withing there groups.


It's not their fault that they're making meaningless wars, conscripting, stealing through taxes, giving themselves special privileges and using the threat of force to beat down their foes. It's just the incentives in the system.

So says Public Choice.

Who says that there cannot be tightly-knit small communities in modern America, considering that one can look back on cities like Antioch or the ethnic groups in major American cities? Besides, the only reason modern society is not tightly-knit is because of the state's destruction of all opposing social authorities, such as religion and the family, through its irrational laws.

Who says the state hates families and religion? Since when are the ethnic groups not subject to US law? You have no proof that non-statist societites not embedded in the state could survive in the modern world.

Exactly, it is not a question of whether voluntary slavery is just, you agree with the capitalists on that one, I would guess. You just disagree with what can be counted as voluntary. Libertarians tend to address this with self-ownership and non-aggression, how do you know when something is voluntary? Do you have some guiding principle or do you just think "Oh nobody would agree to that" and decide it is unjust?

self-ownership explicitly allows for slavery, unless we break the humans as property metaphor inherent in it. if you own yourself, why cannot you sell yourself into slavery if that looks like the least awful option in the current circumstances?


the guiding principle is something closer to "freely agreed to by people of relatively equal bargaining position". of course, truly voluntary agreement also isn't enough, as people can fuck up in ways that impact the future. so we need another condition for freedom, something like "provided that the agreed to doesn't undermine future voluntary agreement by undermining that relative equality of power".

People create a false dichotomy in political ideology which is unecessary and serves only to create confusion and animosity where none need exist.

There are left and right philosophies, but everyone exists at a point on a spectrum, sometimes even at multiple points on different issues, not at one end of a diode. The reason I see as most responsible for conflict between people on generally opposite sides of the spectrum is that people assume others are at the polar extremes of their stated beliefs. Any reasonable investigation would find that the most extreme cases of any ideology are generally unworkable and unreasonable for most people, yet we attribute these beliefs to others because they themselves suggest a leaning in that direction.

By looking at what people actually believe rather than assume they represent the most extreme elements of the broad catagories they label themselves with one can quickly and easily eliminate the confusion and distrust that such steriotyping creates.

As an example I can explain what most reasonable right-libertarians believe, which is not in a completely free market where corporate giants rule the world. In many cases the market economy model creates the most efficeint allocation of resources, but it has certain shortfalls which must be addressed in order to make the market function ideally for all its members. Corporatism actually endangers many of the basic principles of market capitalism as brand loyalty blinds people to product quality and distorts people's valuations of products. An even greater danger of truely lasse faire capitalism is the existance of external costs and benefits and the accompanying lack of proper information in market transactions. Neither the factory owner nor the car buyer in California are affected substantially by the pollution of car manufacturing in Detroit, but that pollution does have a cost to society which is not reflected in the price of the car. Government intervention can serve to alleviate the inefficient market equillibium created by this externality and should do so in order to promote the greatest social benefit from production.

In short, most aspects of production decisions can be handled by a free market for the benefit of the society as a whole, but there are limitations and weaknesses to a free market system which, if reckognized, can be compensated for by directed government intervention. There is however a limit to the benefits government action can have in the marketplace and in many cases government policies serve to lessen economic efficiency, reducing the benefits to society collectively, which is the stated objective of many left wing ideologues.

Simply because both people making a deal get what they want doesn't mean they're getting equal benefit from the deal.

Is it really that important that each person gets equal benefit from a transaction? Is it even practical to seek that balance? If yes to both, how would you go about it? If no, what is a reasonable level of inequality that is both acceptable to both parties and practically achievable?

As an example I can explain what most reasonable right-libertarians believe, which is not in a completely free market where corporate giants rule the world. In many cases the market economy model creates the most efficeint allocation of resources, but it has certain shortfalls which must be addressed in order to make the market function ideally for all its members. Corporatism actually endangers many of the basic principles of market capitalism as brand loyalty blinds people to product quality and distorts people's valuations of products. An even greater danger of truely lasse faire capitalism is the existance of external costs and benefits and the accompanying lack of proper information in market transactions. Neither the factory owner nor the car buyer in California are affected substantially by the pollution of car manufacturing in Detroit, but that pollution does have a cost to society which is not reflected in the price of the car. Government intervention can serve to alleviate the inefficient market equillibium created by this externality and should do so in order to promote the greatest social benefit from production.

Why?

The proper justification for the free market is not as a means to some social end, but rather as an end in itself, desirable for its own sake, regardless of its consequences.

self-ownership explicitly allows for slavery, unless we break the humans as property metaphor inherent in it. if you own yourself, why cannot you sell yourself into slavery if that looks like the least awful option in the current circumstances?

They can sell themselves into slavery.

Some may find that slavery to their priest is preferable to a life of luxury. As I said, it is not the idea of slavery that is wrong but the idea of coercion. I hold that no standard other than self-ownership can be accepted without also accepting coercion.

the guiding principle is something closer to "freely agreed to by people of relatively equal bargaining position". of course, truly voluntary agreement also isn't enough, as people can fuck up in ways that impact the future. so we need another condition for freedom, something like "provided that the agreed to doesn't undermine future voluntary agreement by undermining that relative equality of power".

I imagine that this idea would be impossible to fulfill and undesirable if it were possible but...

By who's measure do we judge power, and how far do we take this restriction? Will the naturally gifted, intelligent, beautiful be handicapped? Should we bring eugenics into play?

So, for instance, planting some seeds and eating the crops that grow from those seeds as much of your sustenance is not a decisive factor in your quality of life?
Not if someone else plants the seeds and you go and eat of those crops. In fact, then doing the work would probably lessen your quality of life.

Since 'positive' and 'negative' freedoms are equally important, both types must be taken into account.
See, that's the difficult part. In a huge number of cases, there's a trade-off between the two, and I'm not sure you have a good way of deciding an optimal level.

It could also be that allowing secession prevents war. Dying in a war significantly reduces all types of freedom.
But what is libertarian about making decisions for other people?

Who's to say that all of the people living in the right-lib community actually believe in the ideology?
Well, it's a libertarian community, so no one is forced to be there. There's a left-lib commune they can go to and presumably a lot of other places in the world too.

Left-libs don't typically respect private property rights, but we will usually respect the agreements we make, which are arguably more important.
But making an agreement like this presumes the right to do so, which presumes a property right. Now, maybe this is due to me not being able to understand the libertarian part about communal ownership, but where is the property right of the diabetic who really doesn't want the right-libs' society respected in exchange for his death? Where is his positive freedom? How is his position different from that of the poor guy today who can't afford the medicine he needs or wants (which presumably represents an injustice to you and other left-libs)?

Certainly. If two people (or groups) can't come to an agreement over a piece of land and how to use it, what happens?
Barring some sort of law and court system, they hit each other over the head until one side is convinced.

Why?

The proper justification for the free market is not as a means to some social end, but rather as an end in itself, desirable for its own sake, regardless of its consequences.

Proper? According to whom?

A free market is desirable because in most cases it arrives at the socially optimal level of production without the need for an expensive planning agency. As long as its shortfalls are understood and compensated for the free market results in the greatest social value of produced goods, ideally.

Of course there are problems in the actual workings of real life markets, but mostly these result from people exploiting imperfections in the market to subvert its basic principles for private gain.

Proper? According to whom?

Ayn Rand.

Pinker's view is based on a number of studies of a number of cultures, including Papuan New Guineans.

And Popisil's own empirical findings says otherwise.

The state out competed it as an ecological niche. Anyway do you have proof that modern business arbitration uses precedents handed down from merchent law long ago?

The state used its physical force and the threat thereof to stamp it out, like any other customary law it has encountered. It didn't out-compete it on fair terms. Also, Jerold S. Auerbach, Justice Without Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 113.

I didn't say they were all one community, but they were made up of them. Jews who use rabbinical law, and all the other ethnic groups were still subject to US and Canadian law.

But they chose to avoid the useless statist courts in favor of their own courts. Besides, customary law has existed longer than legislative law, and is relied upon in order to avoid statist courts. Without statist courts, it would be dominant because it is the ultimate choice of free peoples.

In Antioch the groups were still sunject to state law when there were problems between group and they still ultimately had to bow down to the rulers of the city. In any case. In any case I can hardly see why you enjoy illiberal groups holding power. The ethnic groups were not well known for letting diversity withing there groups.

Irrelevant; my point still stands that tight-knit communities can stand in large cities. And diversity has absolutely nothing to do with liberality; if people do not associate with others, it is their choice. In fact, forcing them to associate with others despite what they want is illiberal. I admire the Jews and the Chinese for staying true to their roots and resisting the arbitrary rules of others who have long lost theirs.

So says Public Choice.

Then in that regard it is terribly incorrect. There's an obvious difference between someone who uses their position to help others to help themselves and one who tramples on others' rights for their own good.

Who says the state hates families and religion? Since when are the ethnic groups not subject to US law? You have no proof that non-statist societites not embedded in the state could survive in the modern world.

The state has taken the responsibilities of the family and religion to strengthen its own legitimacy; Bismarck knew this. It has taken the role of charity and education and child-rearing and other traditional roles of the other social authorities, such as families, churches, and (ethnic) communities, and advanced radical feminism, anti-clericalism and homogeneity in its attempts to strengthen its power; see the Soviet Union. Any other social authority is an enemy to its power. Also, seeing as how kinship, religion and ethnicity long predate the state, it is reasonable to assume that they would outlive the state as they are not dependent but rather often antagonistic to it. Additionally, whenever people were outside of the authority of the state customary law would spring up, such as in mining camps and wagon trains and the not-so-Wild West and the Committee of Vigilance in San Francisco and ethnic communities, which all succeeded where statist law failed. In the event of future failure of statist law or its disappearance, it is quite obvious that such institutions would spring up fresh to take up the slack far better than the state ever did.

Ayn Rand.

She was wrong. The market is not desirable because it is. Any argument that says, "this is not a means to an end, but an end in itself," is skating on thin ice as far as I'm concerned. At the very least those arguments lose credibility in economic debate and venture into the realm of metaphysics and the science of human satisfaction, but I bet you wouldn't be able to find many people who said they liked the market "just because."

Also, I'm not even so sure Rand would have argued that the market is an end in itself. Even if there's a quote of her saying that her writings seem to suggest that she viewed the market as the best system to allow people to pursue enlightened self-interest which would be the end, not the market itself. I'm not a Rand scholar so I can't say for sure, but from what I've read that's the impression I got.

People won't enter into an agreement or contract unless both sides percieve some sort of benefit from the transaction. If there would not be a benefit, then it might be called charity-in which case both sides have to be free and willing participants.

Does the benefit have to be equal? No, but I fail to see how damage would occur if coercion, force, or fraud is absent from the equation.If there is a massive disparity in benefit, then the party who has the item being traded for that provides the greater benefit to the other coerces the other into accepting the trade.

Is it really that important that each person gets equal benefit from a transaction? Is it even practical to seek that balance? If yes to both, how would you go about it? If no, what is a reasonable level of inequality that is both acceptable to both parties and practically achievable?Equal benefit? Perhaps not, but an approximately equal benefit? Absolutely. Anything else is a recipe for oppression.

Not if someone else plants the seeds and you go and eat of those crops. In fact, then doing the work would probably lessen your quality of life.If the person who plants the seeds is using the crops, they are using them.

See, that's the difficult part. In a huge number of cases, there's a trade-off between the two, and I'm not sure you have a good way of deciding an optimal level.Perhaps, perhaps not, but any system that concerns itself with only one type of freedom can, at most, only have 50% (or so) of freedom, which gives it an automatic failing grade as far as freedom goes.

But what is libertarian about making decisions for other people?They aren't making decisions for other people, they're saying 'we are doing X, join us or do something else'. The choice of whether or not to join is up to the individual.

Well, it's a libertarian community, so no one is forced to be there. There's a left-lib commune they can go to and presumably a lot of other places in the world too.Certainly, but it stands to reason than a right-lib community could appeal to people not of the ideology, unless you're saying that only right-libertarians benefit from right-libertarianism.

But making an agreement like this presumes the right to do so, which presumes a property right.No, the agreement it itself the property right. The right to make the agreement can be granted by other methods.

Now, maybe this is due to me not being able to understand the libertarian part about communal ownership,Perhaps. It could also be that most left-libs believe in 'personal property' rights, just not private property rights, and the different framework can be difficult to grasp at first.

but where is the property right of the diabetic who really doesn't want the right-libs' society respected in exchange for his death? Is the insulin the right-lib society has the only source of insulin?

Where is his positive freedom? How is his position different from that of the poor guy today who can't afford the medicine he needs or wants (which presumably represents an injustice to you and other left-libs)?Because there will be other sources of insulin than the one the right-lib society has that the diabetic could have access to.

Barring some sort of law and court system, they hit each other over the head until one side is convinced.Why would there be an absence of a law and court system? Simply because it isn't a statist law and court system doesn't mean it isn't there.

Equal benefit? Perhaps not, but an approximately equal benefit? Absolutely. Anything else is a recipe for oppression.

If the inequality becomes systematic or results from the application of force, economic or otherwise, by one of the parties then I'd agree. A particular transaction where one party benefits much more than another causes no great danger to either party as long as both continue to benefit.

If the inequality becomes systematic or results from the application of force, economic or otherwise, by one of the parties then I'd agree. A particular transaction where one party benefits much more than another causes no great danger to either party as long as both continue to benefit.Particular transactions tend to become systematic.

The key is not to have some political redistribution, which will only benefit those who have political connection (see iron triangles), but to get out of the way of those who use the economic means of wealth accumulation and thus encourage such useful methods in general.


Of course, this is basically what I said myself. I simply make the process communal, rather than individual.

Pffft. I made a good point, explained why it is that you have left libertarians attacking right libertarians but not the other way around (at least if they're reasonable and on anything other than a purely theoretical level), and everyone ignores me


You're being ignored because your argument is broken right here:


A left libertarian society cannot within it sustain groups of free-market libertarians having little capitalist societies.


The problem with the above is that it is based on a belief, common among the "left" and much as the "right," that "left" and "free-market" are incompatible. I and others have already provided links to the primary counter-example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

At it's foundation (from before Marx, who for some bizarre reason is treated as the Alpha and Omega of socialist theory...), "socialism" was simply a restructuring of ownership and control; ideally, there would cease to be a distinction between employee and owner.

That's it. There is no fundamental contradiction or incompatibility between social ownership and control and the market, or trade, or even profit. The only thing socialism aims to abolish is the class distinction between owner and employee by making each one and the same.

The reason why we now have "right" and "left" "libertarians" is because that very simple aim and message somewhere got lost. This is due largely to the presence of an important entity, the State, which provides the coercive power necessary for each class to attempt and maintain political hegemony over the other. Merger, the creation of the Working Owner or the Owning Worker, was abandoned for domination. Mutualism is an anarchist political and economic position exactly because it does not fall into this trap.

While "left" and "right" "libertarians" might call for the end of the State, to whatever degree, they are still perfectly happy to maintain the class warfare mentality. The "right" "libertarians" represent the interests of the Owner class, and the "left" "libertarians" represent the interests of the Worker class. Of course, the sooner the two of them realize that the class warfare mentality is the health of the State, the sooner we can get back to pursuing a society of free-market Working Owners who Own while Working.

Of course, this is basically what I said myself. I simply make the process communal, rather than individual.

If you are implying, as I think you are, that this will revolve around a majoritarian legislative scheme of any kind, then it is still a political means of wealth accumulation.

If you are implying, as I think you are, that this will revolve around a majoritarian legislative scheme of any kind...

To the extent that a factory's worth of Worker-Owners making decisions together constitutes a "majoritarian legislative scheme." If this is unacceptable, then I would have to ask how a Board of Directors composed of only Owners while doing exactly the same thing is any more acceptable.

To the extent that a factory's worth of Worker-Owners making decisions together constitutes a "majoritarian legislative scheme." If this is unacceptable, then I would have to ask how a Board of Directors composed of only Owners while doing exactly the same thing is any more acceptable.

If it has to be composed of only worker-owners, and there is no other option for ownership based upon the homesteader's first occupancy, then this is a majoritarian legislative scheme.

The state used its physical force and the threat thereof to stamp it out, like any other customary law it has encountered. It didn't out-compete it on fair terms. Also, Jerold S. Auerbach, Justice Without Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 113.

so your cusmoary law societies are not effective at protecting their members. They are either taken over by states or form there own. There is an ecological niche in human societies that cumstomary law has repeatedly lost.

But they chose to avoid the useless statist courts in favor of their own courts. Besides, customary law has existed longer than legislative law, and is relied upon in order to avoid statist courts. Without statist courts, it would be dominant because it is the ultimate choice of free peoples.

Irrelevent what they chose. They still existed within a statist society.

Irrelevant; my point still stands that tight-knit communities can stand in large cities. And diversity has absolutely nothing to do with liberality; if people do not associate with others, it is their choice. In fact, forcing them to associate with others despite what they want is illiberal. I admire the Jews and the Chinese for staying true to their roots and resisting the arbitrary rules of others who have long lost theirs.

You admire the Jews who created the state of Israel that is looked on favorably by the rabbinic courts and the Chinese with their Confucian ethics of benign authoritarianism?

Then in that regard it is terribly incorrect. There's an obvious difference between someone who uses their position to help others to help themselves and one who tramples on others' rights for their own good.

Its based on their whole methodology. If the structure is not true then the whole thing collapses.

The state has taken the responsibilities of the family and religion to strengthen its own legitimacy; Bismarck knew this. It has taken the role of charity and education and child-rearing and other traditional roles of the other social authorities, such as families, churches, and (ethnic) communities, and advanced radical feminism, anti-clericalism and homogeneity in its attempts to strengthen its power; see the Soviet Union. Any other social authority is an enemy to its power. Also, seeing as how kinship, religion and ethnicity long predate the state, it is reasonable to assume that they would outlive the state as they are not dependent but rather often antagonistic to it. Additionally, whenever people were outside of the authority of the state customary law would spring up, such as in mining camps and wagon trains and the not-so-Wild West and the Committee of Vigilance in San Francisco and ethnic communities, which all succeeded where statist law failed. In the event of future failure of statist law or its disappearance, it is quite obvious that such institutions would spring up fresh to take up the slack far better than the state ever did.

All of the wagon trains, mining camps, ect all became statist, usually with through the actions of their members. You have not shown how or why the state will disapear. Or if it does why new states wont take their place. Its quite obvious that religions and ethnic groups would create their own states such as when Yugoslavia broke up. Many seccesion movements going around dont want to destroy the state but form new ones more to ones likiking.

Also capitalism did much to break up the family. When women can earn wages they no longer have to stick with husbands they dislike. When children became cost centers instead of income gnerators it became much easier to invest in ones retirement by having fewer children and investing one's money in other things.

If it has to be composed of only worker-owners, and there is no other option for ownership based upon the homesteader's first occupancy, then this is a majoritarian legislative scheme.

All forms of property, including those established by homesteading, are legal and thus "legislative schemes." As such, I fail to understand your point.

edit: At any rate, the historical record tells us that much of the "empty" land that was "homsteaded" wasn't actually empty. The colonial expropriation of land from indigenous peoples by act of the State (or "homsteading") probably isn't a very good foundation for an argument against "majoritarian legislative schemes." Indeed, I would assume that one would instead prefer and support the title to such land remaining with its original Worker-Occupants/Owners.

All forms of property, including those established by homesteading, are legal and thus "legislative schemes." As such, I fail to understand your point.

edit: At any rate, the historical record tells us that much of the "empty" land that was "homsteaded" wasn't actually empty. The colonial expropriation of land from indigenous peoples by act of the State (or "homsteading") probably isn't a very good foundation for an argument against "majoritarian legislative schemes." Indeed, I would assume that one would instead prefer and support the title to such land remaining with its original Worker-Occupants/Owners.

No. Legislation and legality are entirely separate entities. Legislation depends entirely upon a monopoly on jurisdiction, in which laws are impressed upon the populace regardless of their unanimity. And the expropriation of land from indigenous people didn't involve first occupancy (obviously) but legal patent from rulers, i.e. legislation. I would also support giving it back to its first occupants, the indigenous people.

so your cusmoary law societies are not effective at protecting their members. They are either taken over by states or form there own. There is an ecological niche in human societies that cumstomary law has repeatedly lost.

But this is all because of external factors, not because of the internal factors of customary law and arbitration. Ultimately, this is a problem of information; people are tricked by rulers into supporting rulers and the like into giving up their freedoms in the case of a crisis, particularly war. This goes entirely against the foundations of customary law in the first place. However, given the advanced level of information in a modern society, it would be extremely easy to prevent a new state from forming if today's states were eradicated.

Irrelevent what they chose. They still existed within a statist society.

It is relevant what they choose, because it is due to the failings of statism that they revert to customary law. And the only way legislative law reasserts itself is by way of physical force, not because of its greater justice. Were legislative law eliminated, with the high-technology of the internet there would be a great reduction in the chance of the state resurging. And even if the state were to return, there would at least be a respite from its tyranny.

You admire the Jews who created the state of Israel that is looked on favorably by the rabbinic courts and the Chinese with their Confucian ethics of benign authoritarianism?

Yes, I do. It's definitely better than the insane notion that a piece of paper can protect civil liberties and that a dominant consortium of particular interests will render each their due, instead of stealing for themselves. I also admire that they maintain their social institutions, instead of decomposing into an alienated bunch of fools whose only link to one another is their slavish obedience to the state and nothing else. If there is any group that has created evil ideologies that have snuffed out liberty, it is caucasians through originating arbitrary law on a massive scale 'for the people.'

Its based on their whole methodology. If the structure is not true then the whole thing collapses.

I don't see how saying that rent-seekers are necessarily immoral disproves the idea that people will abuse their privileges. In fact, it strengthens it.

All of the wagon trains, mining camps, ect all became statist, usually with through the actions of their members. You have not shown how or why the state will disapear. Or if it does why new states wont take their place. Its quite obvious that religions and ethnic groups would create their own states such as when Yugoslavia broke up. Many seccesion movements going around dont want to destroy the state but form new ones more to ones likiking.

They became statist with the re-assertion of the state in their territories, such as the Committee of Vigilance in San Francisco being brought down by threats from the city and state government when it had in fact performed admirably. The same with the supposedly 'Wild' West when the Republican party invaded the West and subjugated both the Indians and American citizens. The state will collapse upon itself from its own parasitic depredations, especially in America due to its overextension of its armies, depreciation of money, high debt etc. etc. After all, government has exploded since the end of World War I (Pre-World War I, taxation was about 5% of national income. Now it is often around 50%.) However, to keep it dead its flaws versus customary law must be publicized so that it will lose its legitimacy, as legitimacy is the way it maintains itself and keeps the captive populace from resisting. Information is the key to destroying the state, and now is the perfect time to use it.

Also capitalism did much to break up the family. When women can earn wages they no longer have to stick with husbands they dislike. When children became cost centers instead of income gnerators it became much easier to invest in ones retirement by having fewer children and investing one's money in other things.

No, democracy destroyed the family through inflation, which necessitated both parents working in order to keep apace, as well as the welfare state and taxation (especially inheritance) which reduced the need for filial piety and proper care for one's children. Many of the aspects of community life and the family have been taken from subsidiary institutions and given to the state, thus eroding them and giving the state more power over every aspect of life.

I would say I'm a Left Libertarian, though not the abolition of private property kind, which reminds me more of Anarcho-Communism.

Anyways, I tend to have Libertarian social views.
I also think that private property is just fine, though there should be limits, such as to protect the environment and to for the common good, which is why I support fair imminent domain.
As for the main aspect of Libertarianism, the market, I believe in a mixed economy with government ownership of some things like power plants and strategic crops.
I also believe the government should keep large monopolies from forming, and that the government themselves should'nt have monopolies on the things they run wither, IE the aforementioned strategic crops.


In the end I'd love to see some kind of Anarcho-Socialism with either democratic or consensus decision making, but I realize the chances of that happening on a large scale are incredibly small, so I support a somewhat Libertarian-Socialist viewpoint.

But this is all because of external factors, not because of the internal factors of customary law and arbitration. Ultimately, this is a problem of information; people are tricked by rulers into supporting rulers and the like into giving up their freedoms in the case of a crisis, particularly war. This goes entirely against the foundations of customary law in the first place. However, given the advanced level of information in a modern society, it would be extremely easy to prevent a new state from forming if today's states were eradicated.

People have access to advanced level of information currently and yet te state still exists. Also external factors are important. Your customary societies are unable to deal with them.

It is relevant what they choose, because it is due to the failings of statism that they revert to customary law. And the only way legislative law reasserts itself is by way of physical force, not because of its greater justice. Were legislative law eliminated, with the high-technology of the internet there would be a great reduction in the chance of the state resurging. And even if the state were to return, there would at least be a respite from its tyranny.

They didn't reject statism at all. They just used customary law for some disputes within a basically statist system. Legislative law is not going away anytime soon.

Yes, I do. It's definitely better than the insane notion that a piece of paper can protect civil liberties and that a dominant consortium of particular interests will render each their due, instead of stealing for themselves. I also admire that they maintain their social institutions, instead of decomposing into an alienated bunch of fools whose only link to one another is their slavish obedience to the state and nothing else. If there is any group that has created evil ideologies that have snuffed out liberty, it is caucasians through originating arbitrary law on a massive scale 'for the people.'

So you admire those who would create their own states?. That's odd.

I don't see how saying that rent-seekers are necessarily immoral disproves the idea that people will abuse their privileges. In fact, it strengthens it.

Public Choice would have you believe that in a customary society don't not use coercion because of morality but because of its ineffectiveness. If they could get rents through coercion they would.

They became statist with the re-assertion of the state in their territories, such as the Committee of Vigilance in San Francisco being brought down by threats from the city and state government when it had in fact performed admirably. The same with the supposedly 'Wild' West when the Republican party invaded the West and subjugated both the Indians and American citizens. The state will collapse upon itself from its own parasitic depredations, especially in America due to its overextension of its armies, depreciation of money, high debt etc. etc. After all, government has exploded since the end of World War I (Pre-World War I, taxation was about 5% of national income. Now it is often around 50%.) However, to keep it dead its flaws versus customary law must be publicized so that it will lose its legitimacy, as legitimacy is the way it maintains itself and keeps the captive populace from resisting. Information is the key to destroying the state, and now is the perfect time to use it.

The destruction of states creates new states. Look at fall of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. New states sprang into being . Also, if the Great Depression is sign of what happens during an economic collapse the state will expand, the free market will retract, and protectionism will reign supreme.

No, democracy destroyed the family through inflation, which necessitated both parents working in order to keep apace, as well as the welfare state and taxation (especially inheritance) which reduced the need for filial piety and proper care for one's children. Many of the aspects of community life and the family have been taken from subsidiary institutions and given to the state, thus eroding them and giving the state more power over every aspect of life.

No, increased foreign competition, the increased importance of skilled labor, and deregulation all helped erode real wage growth for many males. Combined with the Red Queen problem, one has to keep moving to stay in the same place, women had to enter the workforce to increase living standards. This combined with the increased opportunity cost of children and the fact that investments in children are highly uncertain when children have no legal obligation to support one in one's old age all helped weaken the family.

There is no fundamental contradiction or incompatibility between social ownership and control and the market, or trade, or even profit.
So, if we had something associated with the LTV, how would we be making a profit? In mutualism, aren't you supposed to be paying labour for labour?

But maybe I see where we're disagreeing. You seem to think that us being in some sort of working owners' commune-type thing and working together to make some sort of profit would actually be the basis for a market society. But it couldn't be - we're still individuals. Our actual profits, our actual exchanges would still be with other individuals, for our personal gain. This commune is just a means to an end, namely our own happiness. Within this commune we're gonna have vicious debates about trying to get resources into our own pockets, with the outside we double-cross our commune mates whenever we think we can get away with it. Our behaviour doesn't change, all you've done is made it something bad by creating this artificial obligation to a few other randoms.

To me, that would just equate having been chained to a bunch of retards. And it would have to be to every human being confident in his or her own abilities. The belief that a continuous (that is, not just on issue Y or issue X, but on all issues at all times) bond with another person is beneficial presupposes your own inability to better what the other person can achieve. The only person who could consistently profit from being in this working owner commune is the incapable. Which is, by the way, why I don't think that a left-libertarian community can exist side by side with a right-libertarian one, even if it could be organised so it works - it's a giant adverse selection (and moral hazard) problem.

But if we have these working owners' communes, and they're working fine, and they have capable people in them, but those then act as agents in a market (I may be misunderstanding you here), then you have precisely what I'm saying: The market economy's rules can within themselves sustain communes or indeed whatever other sub-group you can come up with. But any other system cannot within itself support an actual market economy (that is, one where you can own investments even if you're not occupying or otherwise posessing them at any one time), because any private property would be subject to interference by others who have a different concept of property and would not be held back by anything but coercive force, whether as Jello Biafra apparently concedes that would be done by the left-lib communal leadership, or alternatively by the right-lib with the shotgun on his porch.

Let's make an example: you have a mutualist world, with property by posession/use the accepted rule. There are various such groups, without states.

Then there is one right-libertarian group. It's anarchist, so everyone who belongs to it supports its view of private property by acquisition in a market place or homesteading. In this community the norm is subjective value, and you can own things without ever having used them or planning to do so. This group is granted the use of a certain piece of land. And on the border of this land, a piece of acreage is bought as an investment by a right-lib. He's not using it, nor was he the one who drained the swamp that made it worth something, so the left-libs wouldn't accept his property right to it.

So now a group of left-libs walks across the border and grows, say, hemp (;)) there. The fact that there is a hemp field and a group of tents now reduces the price the right-lib would be getting for his investment, so he's lost out.

The only way to prevent this is by the left-libs having some sort of leadership that can, if need be, use coercive measures to honour its agreement with the right-libs of being able to own (!?) this land and live according to non-mutualist values there - or by the right-lib shooting at the left-libs when they want to enter the territory. Both ways are the coercive implementation of a "wrong" type of property, which is precisely what the left-libertarian community is having such a problem with. So either they are compromising their own views one way or the other (either by enforcing it themselves or allowing the enforcement contrary to what they themselves believe) by allowing a right-libertarian community to exist. The antagonism and subsequent clash of existential interests is pre-programmed.

Meanwhile, a right-libertarian world would have no difficulty having within it a mutualist world. There are already measures in place that prevent anyone from compromising the mutualist commune, since it's private property. No right-libs would have a problem with preventing some anti-communist hothead from entering the mutualist territory, nor would they have an interest in entering themselves without an invitation, since they don't want to violate property rights.

What the mutualists do with their stuff once they have it is of no effect. The clash is in the view of property itself which makes it impossible to consistently tolerate other forms of ownership.