Are liberals allies to socialism?

[Questerr]

@aociswundumho

In your AnCap model where every is privatized, everything is monetized, and there are no commons, if a person is so poor they can’t afford lodgings and they squat on someone’s property (which they would have to because all land would be privatized) thereby committing a crime against their property rights, how would the private police and private courts force restitution from a person so destitute they can’t even put a roof over their head?

 

[vanceen]

Robert Nozick

Nozick drew a lot of arbitrary lines to defend capitalism and his free market ideas. In his concept of “Justice in Acquisition” for instance, he only goes back one “generation” in determining if a piece of property was justly acquired.

Theorists about property rights going back to Smith all support the idea that only a piece of property can only be justly traded/transferred if it was first justly acquired. But we said, Nozick arbitrarily draws that line at only a single generation: so long I justly acquired a good, I can justly trade it to you.

But what it that good was never justly given to me? I sell you some land that I inherited from my dad, but my dad got that land by killing its previous owner and taking it from them. Why is that “just” just because it happened two “generations” ago instead of one?

And that just one issue I have with Nozick.

As I posted above, I was thinking about Sandel.

Nozick was a libertarian, but softened his views over time.

 

[vanceen]

Wow, never heard of this guy.

I only recently heard of him. I think he's got an interesting take.

 

[aociswundumho]

@aociswundumho

In your AnCap model where every is privatized, everything is monetized, and there are no commons, if a person is so poor they can’t afford lodgings and they squat on someone’s property (which they would have to because all land would be privatized) thereby committing a crime against their property rights, how would the private police and private courts force restitution from a person so destitute they can’t even put a roof over their head?

Anarchy means no state - that's all. I don't know if there would be no commons. There's no guarantee such a society would even be libertarian, although it probably would be.

I'm not going to get into your other questions because it's too far off topic. I will say that private courts in the past typically did not "force" restitution. If you didn't abide by the court, you could end up becoming an outlaw.

Private arbitration today is a large industry, and they do not enforce their awards. The reason private arbitration exists is because government-run courts suck so bad. Years ago I had a commercial tenant that owed me about 20k in back rent. I sued and won, but there was no way for me to get any of the money from him.

 

[Questerr]

Anarchy means no state - that's all. I don't know if there would be no commons. There's no guarantee such a society would even be libertarian, although it probably would be.

I'm not going to get into your other questions because it's too far off topic. I will say that private courts in the past typically did not "force" restitution. If you didn't abide by the court, you could end up becoming an outlaw.

Private arbitration today is a large industry, and they do not enforce their awards. The reason private arbitration exists is because government-run courts suck so bad. Years ago I had a commercial tenant that owed me about 20k in back rent. I sued and won, but there was no way for me to get any of the money from him.

How can there be property owned by everyone? You have rejected communal ownership in the past. Thus the commons would have to be privatized.

What would your system do with someone who has no way to give restitution other than being forced to provide labor for the injured party?

I supposed such a person does have another piece of property that could be sized: valuable organs. Would your private police and private courts force a destitute person to give up parts of their body if they couldn’t pay restitution?

If private arbitration was the only form of courts that existed and couldn’t enforce any of judgements, why would anyone use it? If my family member is murdered and a private court can’t make the perpetrator do anything even if they are convicted, why would I bother going to the court?

 

[Questerr]

Anarchy means no state - that's all. I don't know if there would be no commons. There's no guarantee such a society would even be libertarian, although it probably would be.

I'm not going to get into your other questions because it's too far off topic. I will say that private courts in the past typically did not "force" restitution. If you didn't abide by the court, you could end up becoming an outlaw.

Private arbitration today is a large industry, and they do not enforce their awards. The reason private arbitration exists is because government-run courts suck so bad. Years ago I had a commercial tenant that owed me about 20k in back rent. I sued and won, but there was no way for me to get any of the money from him.

BTW, outlaws were usually killed or sold into slavery.

So you system would deal with the extremely poor by killing them or selling them into slavery, and you think this is a better system?

 

[ralfy]

Thus, given the point that socialism involves a range of regulations leading to social ownership or responsibility, and that modern capitalism relies on these for more efficient operations (e.g., fiat currencies, legal systems to ensure private property ownership, limited liability, etc.), then not only liberals but conservatives are also "allies" to socialism. But the types of socialism supported varies.