Left Libertarianism

[RGacky3]

1. And should they value the accumulation of wealth for themselves? Or we talking about a society of ascetics?

2. Not really. It is asking one to expand upon the thoughts of cooperative economics. Explaining why people "will do this" or "will do that" as opposed to merely asserting that this is the case.

3. But what do such models, presently existing within the structures of a capitalist system, have do with such models existing when those capitalist structures no longer exist?

1. value whatever they want ... but they'll value the enviroment in the community more, becuase they have to live there, and they'll value their wages more .... because it's their wages ...

2. Because it's in their interest to pay themselves more and keep the community in which they live unpolluted.

3. Why would that be a problem?

 

[Federalist]

The only one who has said they were perfectly happy with this was you

You're not reading very carefully, it seems.

 

[Federalist]

So does John Smith's lease, and John Smith's English cousin's title of tenure, and all other deeds of limited ownership. What nothing says is "John Smith is entitled to unlimited ownership of...". When you say "deed", you're of course referring to the second highest title available (the first highest being the title of the government that authorizes the deed), the fee simple. But even fee simples are limited by definition, including by taxation, same as a lessee's title is limited by rent.

Right libertarians are in favor of a system of governance in which each individual owner is legally considered the actual owner her own property.

 

[TeleKat]

Right libertarians are in favor of a system of governance in which each individual owner is legally considered the actual owner her own property.

So the native americans would get their land back?

 

[Federalist]

So the native americans would get their land back?

I'm talking about our current society, not the the one that existed previously.

Do you also advocate giving England back to the Danes? Wait, I mean the Saxons. Wait, I mean the Romans. Wait, I mean the Britons.

 

[RGacky3]

I'm talking about our current society, not the the one that existed previously.

Do you also advocate giving England back to the Danes? Wait, I mean the Saxons. Wait, I mean the Romans. Wait, I mean the Britons.

Oh ok ... so if society changes ... then it should stay that way .... right?

 

[Federalist]

Oh ok ... so if society changes ... then it should stay that way .... right?

I don't know what you're asking, but maybe I can rephrase to help.

Right libertarians are in favor of the society in which they live having a system of governance in which each individual owner is legally considered the actual owner her own property.

 

[RGacky3]

I don't know what you're asking, but maybe I can rephrase to help.

Right libertarians are in favor of the society in which they live having a system of governance in which each individual owner is legally considered the actual owner her own property.

I get that, but you said not the native Americans but Our CURRENT society ... so if the property structure changes ... then we should stick With THAT property structure right?

You're basically saying we don't need to respect the native American's property structure becuase it changed.

 

[Federalist]

I get that, but you said not the native Americans but Our CURRENT society ... so if the property structure changes ... then we should stick With THAT property structure right?

You're basically saying we don't need to respect the native American's property structure becuase it changed.

Because it doesn't exist any more. We're talking about our society now.

 

[TeleKat]

I'm talking about our current society, not the the one that existed previously.

Oh I see. In other words, you are not for what you claim to be for.

Do you also advocate giving England back to the Danes? Wait, I mean the Saxons. Wait, I mean the Romans. Wait, I mean the Britons.

No, but your property theory necessitates that. Is stolen land really legitimately owned land? If so, what stops me from grabbing a rifle and taking yours? If not, who do we give the land back to? This is the problem with the idea that land property can be owned in the legitimate sense. Land has been here long before any of us walked the Earth. No man created land. This seperates land property from other types of property like a house or a car. We have been and still are laying claim to land "property", not on the basis that we created it or somehow compensated the one(s) who did, but simply because we "say" we own it. The first land "owners" pointed to various areas on the Earth and said "mine." From there everything is a blur of bloodshed, theft, annexation, and war. This is where right-libertarian property theory falls apart.

 

[RGacky3]

Because it doesn't exist any more. We're talking about our society now.

Ok, so right wing libertarianism isn't really a fundemental foundational principle, it's just about right now ... conservatism.

 

[Federalist]

Oh I see. In other words, you are not for what you claim to be for.

No, but your property theory necessitates that. Is stolen land really legitimately owned land? If so, what stops me from grabbing a rifle and taking yours? If not, who do we give the land back to? This is the problem with the idea that land property can be owned in the legitimate sense. Land has been here long before any of us walked the Earth. No man created land. This seperates land property from other types of property like a house or a car. We have been and still are laying claim to land "property", not on the basis that we created it or somehow compensated the one(s) who did, but simply because we "say" we own it. The first land "owners" pointed to various areas on the Earth and said "mine." From there everything is a blur of bloodshed, theft, annexation, and war. This is where right-libertarian property theory falls apart.

Does your theory of government ownership entail the government giving all the land in the United States back to the native Americans?

 

[Federalist]

Ok, so right wing libertarianism isn't really a fundemental foundational principle, it's just about right now ... conservatism.

Does your socialist theory of government ownership entail the government giving all the land in the United States back to the native Americans?

 

[RGacky3]

Does your socialist theory of government ownership entail the government giving all the land in the United States back to the native Americans?

No, because as was already said .... you're the one With the absolute propertarian philosophy.

 

[Federalist]

No, because as was already said .... you're the one With the absolute propertarian philosophy.

So are you. You hold that all the land in the 50 states is owned by the US government.

 

[RGacky3]

So are you. You hold that all the land in the 50 states is owned by the US government.

Where on Earth would you get that idea from?

 

[Federalist]

Where on Earth would you get that idea from?

Ownership of a thing means the right to control access to that thing. The one with this right is called the owner. Under your system, who decides whether Smith or Jones may farm a particular area?

 

[RGacky3]

Ownership of a thing means the right to control access to that thing. The one with this right is called the owner. Under your system, who decides whether Smith or Jones may farm a particular area?

The People in and around that area that might be affected, I thought I made this Clear.

Ownership means EXCLUSIVE right to Control Access btw.

 

[Federalist]

The People in and around that area that might be affected, I thought I made this Clear.

Okay, so you don't see the US government as the owner. Now that I think of it, that was Minimalist. My apologies.

So the people in and around that area have the sole and exclusive right to control access to the land. They are the owners, and the field that Smith and Jones want to use, along with the rest of the land under their jurisdiction, is their property.

See, you believe in property too.

 

[The Minimalist]

Right libertarians are in favor of a system of governance in which each individual owner is legally considered the actual owner her own property.

Yes, and the flavor of the month for the owner is the one with "the legal title". But I still don't know which title you're referring to, because there are many different kinds of legal titles, often for a single property at the same time. Each confers a certain set of rights regarding the property, but none confers ownership as you understand it. And of course the government has its own documentation of its highest, territorial claims. I doubt any legal title actually uses the word "owner", but do you really want to base your whole ideology on semantics anyway?

 

[RGacky3]

Okay, so you don't see the US government as the owner. Now that I think of it, that was Minimalist. My apologies.

So the people in and around that area have the sole and exclusive right to control access to the land. They are the owners, and the field that Smith and Jones want to use, along with the rest of the land under their jurisdiction, is their property.

See, you believe in property too.

No they don't have the sole and exclusive right, if someone else is in the area, they have a say too.

It's called the commons, as much as you want to desperately try and pretend the commons is just property by another name it's not gonna work, it's a different category, unless you want to change the meaning of property to mean basically anything.

 

[Federalist]

No they don't have the sole and exclusive right, if someone else is in the area, they have a say too.

Yes, if someone else is in the area, he would be included as one of "the people in the area" to which you referred. These people in the area have the exclusive right to control access to their property. They decide whether Smith or Jones gets to use the farm.

Oh, and the funny thing is, the people in the area took their area from the Native Americans, this area, their property, over which they are exercising jurisdiction.

It's called the commons, as much as you want to desperately try and pretend the commons is just property by another name it's not gonna work, it's a different category, unless you want to change the meaning of property to mean basically anything.

It's commonly owned property.

 

[RGacky3]

Yes, if someone else is in the area, he would be included as one of "the people in the area" to which you referred. These people in the area have the exclusive right to control access to their property. They decide whether Smith or Jones gets to use the farm.

Oh, and the funny thing is, the people in the area took their area from the Native Americans, this area, their property, over which they are exercising jurisdiction.

It's commonly owned property.

Ok, you're just arguing semantics here, Call it whatever you want, but the fact is, it's a compeltely differnet type of way organizing.

 

[Federalist]

Yes, and the flavor of the month for the owner is the one with "the legal title". But I still don't know which title you're referring to […]

In the case of real estate, I'm referring to the land title. However, right-libs are in favor of a system of governance in which each person is the sole owner of any property she owns, such as machines, buildings, commodities, etc.

 

[Federalist]

Ok, you're just arguing semantics here, Call it whatever you want, but the fact is, it's a compeltely differnet type of way organizing.

I'm using the very definition that you gave me. The people in the area have the exclusive right to control access to the land in that area. Thus they own the land, and the land is their property. Property that they stole from the Native Americans.