Left Libertarianism

[ReverendHellh0und]

"Left Libertarian," a term for a Marxist which the one using the term hopes will disguise what they promote.

All I can say is that I noticed like alot of the liberals around here now have the "left-libertarian" moniker.


Left/right libertarian is a cop out for those not ready to embrace freedom, and non-coercion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But absolutely it is not.

You can continue repeating nonsense, but it will remain nonsense.

The nonsense in this case being the concept of "common ownership."

Even on a public beach, people stake out a small portion for their personal use and defend against encroachment. "Common ownership" is a contradiction of terms.

 

[sangha]

The nonsense in this case being the concept of "common ownership."

Even on a public beach, people stake out a small portion for their personal use and defend against encroachment. "Common ownership" is a contradiction of terms.

No one can claim ownership of a portion of a public beach.

 

[iliveonramen]

He did come up with an answer to a tough question. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it's not an answer. His philosophy didn't even break down, but came up with a solution that is in line with it.

It did...even Rothbard understand how absurd the argument is because he tries to come up with a free market solution to alleviate the terrible conclusion of following the philosophy. "yes...parents have the right to starve their children...BUT that would never happen! because free market"

Are you seriously not getting that the system in place today makes a market out of children? The agency is incentivized to take people children, as they get money for each child in their care. If you give them money for constantly looking for trouble and you give them money for when they find it, well, they're going to find a lot of reasons to take peoples kids.

Are we talking adoption agencies or the government child care system? If you're talking about the government child care system...no one is profiting off of taking a child! There's no commissions, no one is getting pay raises, a care facility requires more resources to take care of 2 children than just 1 child. You do understand these folks that work for government would prefer to take care of less children...they aren't getting compensated for additional children, they are getting more work, and more responsibility. This idea that they financially benefit from taking children from homes is ridiculous.

 

[Federalist]

No, consenting to not exercise a right is inherent in the right so it doesn't change the fact that the right is unalienable because the giving up of the property is right their choice.

In the case of "ownership in common" the people have no choice over whether to diminish their share of control

The word unalienable is superfluous. The definition is complete and accurate without it.

The owners of a scarce, rivalrous resource are those with the legal right to control access to that resource.
Those with the legal right to control access to a scarce, rivalrous resource are the owners of that resource.

 

[sangha]

The word unalienable is superfluous. The definition is complete and accurate without it.

In that case, if ownership can be taken away because the owner can't choose to keep their possessions, then there's nothing wrong with taking those possessions

Good job!!!

 

[Federalist]

I never said anything about the kidnapping itself. It is the letting go that is a social service, and the ransom that is proof. But we rightfully remember that, as you say, no one asked for the ransomed thing (which is often indeed a thing and not a person, even in crime) to be taken in the first place, the important part of which is that the thing was indeed taken in the first place, not created by the ransomer. And though the ransomer often, at his own expense, maintains or even increases the ransomed thing's value (for example, by feeding and cleaning up after it, if it be animal or man, or shortening its distance from its destination, if it be a thing intercepted in transit), we are never simple enough to be deceived that he's earned the whole of the ransom. If only reason were so universal when it came to capitalist profits.

Lol. Let me know if you ever convince anyone that kidnapping and ransoming is a social service.

 

[iliveonramen]

Without the right of ones own property, there can be no other rights.

Simple example, a man goes into the wilds of a socialist paradise, plows the land, plants corn, Every day for 4 months, he waters and weeds the corn, until at last it is ripe and ready to harvest. He picks the corn and puts it in a wagon.

To the socialist, the corn belongs to "the people," so the local government boss comes along, takes all the corn, keeps the best for himself and distributes the rest to the public, our farmer waits in line all day, and is lucky enough to get a couple of ears for himself.

Now tell me, what rights does he have?

That's a very simplistic scenario.

Let's take the argument the other way.

One man owns all the arable land in a community and in order to get food the land owner requires you to plow, plant, and harvest acres of food of which he gives you barely enough to survive. Private property is protected in this scenario.

 

[Federalist]

In that case, if ownership can be taken away because the owner can't choose to keep their possessions, then there's nothing wrong with taking those possessions

Good job!!!

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here, or how it relates to the definition of ownership.

The owners of a scarce, rivalrous resource are those with the legal right to control access to that resource.

Those with the legal right to control access to a scarce, rivalrous resource are the owners of that resource.

But if you take issue with that definition, what other word would you use to describe the person(s) with the legal right to control access to a particular scarce, rivalrous resource?

 

[The Minimalist]

Lol. Let me know if you ever convince anyone that kidnapping and ransoming is a social service.

Let me know if you learn how to read.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's a very simplistic scenario.

Let's take the argument the other way.

One man owns all the arable land in a community and in order to get food the land owner requires you to plow, plant, and harvest acres of food of which he gives you barely enough to survive. Private property is protected in this scenario.

Nothing stops me from moving away from that area, and farming land he does not own. Or from working for someone who offers me a better deal, leaving this land baron with no one working his land. In a market system, competition regulates the market.

 

[Federalist]

Let me know if you learn how to read.

No luck convincing anyone, eh?

 

[iliveonramen]

Nothing stops me from moving away from that area, and farming land he does not own. Or from working for someone who offers me a better deal, leaving this land baron with no one working his land. In a market system, competition regulates the market.

You created a situation with very set rules you created yet using my example you create your own rules to circumvent my scenario.
If the vast majority of land was controlled by a small number of individuals...and those individuals acted as a cartel for their benefit setting what wages would be you wouldn't have anywhere to go. All of those circumstances adhere to the idea of respecting private property which you state is the end all be all of liberty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You created a situation with very set rules you created yet using my example you create your own rules to circumvent my scenario.
If the vast majority of land was controlled by a small number of individuals...and those individuals acted as a cartel for their benefit setting what wages would be you wouldn't have anywhere to go. All of those circumstances adhere to the idea of respecting private property which you state is the end all be all of liberty.

Under socialism, the land and it's products are the property of the state.

It is very unlikely that a single interest could tie up all the land in an area, but if they did, one could simply move.

Under socialism, moving is useless, the state still owns all resources and the product of those resources.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You created a situation with very set rules you created yet using my example you create your own rules to circumvent my scenario.
If the vast majority of land was controlled by a small number of individuals...and those individuals acted as a cartel for their benefit setting what wages would be you wouldn't have anywhere to go. All of those circumstances adhere to the idea of respecting private property which you state is the end all be all of liberty.

Don't forget the company scripp too!

 

[Henrin]

It did...even Rothbard understand how absurd the argument is because he tries to come up with a free market solution to alleviate the terrible conclusion of following the philosophy. "yes...parents have the right to starve their children...BUT that would never happen! because free market"

Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism, so of course his solution will use the free market.

Are we talking adoption agencies or the government child care system? If you're talking about the government child care system...no one is profiting off of taking a child! There's no commissions, no one is getting pay raises, a care facility requires more resources to take care of 2 children than just 1 child. You do understand these folks that work for government would prefer to take care of less children...they aren't getting compensated for additional children, they are getting more work, and more responsibility. This idea that they financially benefit from taking children from homes is ridiculous.

Both.

 

[iliveonramen]

Under socialism, the land and it's products are the property of the state.

Well, since this is a thread about left libertarianism...by state you mean small, decentralized co-ops of individuals that work the land/factory etc.

It is very unlikely that a single interest could tie up all the land in an area, but if they did, one could simply move

That's exactly what the world was like for centuries...why do you refuse to admit a society I conjured up using a simple example is just as unfair as the society you conjured up using a simple example?

Under socialism, moving is useless, the state still owns all resources and the product of those resources.

Well...to be fair...using your very specific example of socialism in which the society is ran as an authoritarian one party system for the benefit of party leaders.

 

[iliveonramen]

Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism, so of course his solution will use the free market.

When he mentions baby markets...he does so in a way to explain away the pretty vile conclusion of answering the question "what does Libertarian philosophy say about child neglect". His conclusion is that parents can starve their children and the state can't take away those children...oh...but don't worry, baby markets. It makes those issues go away.

Both.

That doesn't answer why it is in the self interest of either the government official in charge of taking care of those children or the individual worker for taking away more children. It just results in more work, responsibility, with no personal gain

 

[Henrin]

When he mentions baby markets...he does so in a way to explain away the pretty vile conclusion of answering the question "what does Libertarian philosophy say about child neglect". His conclusion is that parents can starve their children and the state can't take away those children...oh...but don't worry, baby markets. It makes those issues go away.

So your solution is any better? You basically just give the state the legal authority to kidnap children and make rules on what the conditions are in which it is acceptable for the state to kidnap other peoples children. Your solution is far worse than anything Rothbard said. Sure, his solution isn't perfect and has some considerable holes, but at least he isn't advocating legalized kidnapping.

That doesn't answer why it is in the self interest of either the government official in charge of taking care of those children or the individual worker for taking away more children. It just results in more work, responsibility, with no personal gain

I was talking about the interest of the agency, not the workers themselves.

 

[iliveonramen]

So your solution is any better? You basically just give the state the legal authority to kidnap children and make rules on what the conditions are in which it is acceptable for the state to kidnap other peoples children. Your solution is far worse than anything Rothbard said. Sure, his solution isn't perfect and has some considerable holes, but at least he isn't advocating legalized kidnapping.

The "state" being a democratically elected group of individuals that are held in check by the constitution and a separation of powers.

State seems to get thrown around a lot as if it's some murky unaccountable force operating on the mission to make everyone's lives miserable.

Actually, if anything the government agencies get accused of not being responsive enough, not kidnapping children left and right. I don't know that actual steps but I'm pretty sure someone has to be charged with actual crimes, which means they have to go through a court system, and of course they get the power to appeal any decisions.

Yes, I think that system is far better than a baby market. In Florida at least I know that Child Services gets in the paper because they DON'T take away a child. I've never seen a scathing piece of a child taken away for no reason. I'm pretty sure it's always preferable for the child to remain with their parent. Your actions have to be pretty egregious to take your child away.

I was talking about the interest of the agency, not the workers themselves.

It's the workers that run the agency with guidance by laws passed by the state/Federal agencies.

What exactly do you mean by the "interest of the agency".

 

[Geoist]

I see. So you say that Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe think they live on their own personal island where nothing they do effects anyone around them, yet you can't present any evidence that they ever actually wrote that.

Those men base their ideology around the non-aggression principle. On the surface, it seems like a wonderful idea: initiation of aggressive force against a person and/or their property is wrong. However, for many right-libertarians, it is the ONLY moral wrong. If we are to take the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion then that would mean any and all pollution MUST be banned. Smoking in public MUST be banned. Rothbard acknowledges pollution as an issue that must be dealt with but he obviously ignores its relation with his principle.

 

[Geoist]

Only Libertarians would state that parents have the right to starve their children to death because making a parent feed/clothe/take care of their baby is coercion.

Another example of the ridiculousness of strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.

Matt Zwolinski addresses it here.

It’s one thing to say that aggression against others is wrong. It’s quite another to say that it’s the only thing that’s wrong – or the only wrong that is properly subject to prevention or rectification by force. But taken to its consistent extreme, as Murray Rothbard took it, the NAP implies that there is nothing wrong with allowing your three year-old son to starve to death, so long as you do not forcibly prevent him from obtaining food on his own. Or, at least, it implies that it would be wrong for others to, say, trespass on your property in order to give the child you’re deliberately starving a piece of bread. This, I think, is a fairly devastating reductio of the view that positive duties may never be coercively enforced. That it was Rothbard himself who presented the reductio, without, apparently, realizing the absurdity into which he had walked, rather boggles the mind.

 

[Henrin]

Those men base their ideology around the non-aggression principle. On the surface, it seems like a wonderful idea: initiation of aggressive force against a person and/or their property is wrong. However, for many right-libertarians, it is the ONLY moral wrong. If we are to take the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion then that would mean any and all pollution MUST be banned. Smoking in public MUST be banned. Rothbard acknowledges pollution as an issue that must be dealt with but he obviously ignores its relation with his principle.

He goes out of his way to say pollution is aggression towards your person. Of course, everything I read from him was written before the whole smoking is bad for you thing, so it mostly deals with pollution from factories and power plants.

 

[Geoist]

One is drawn to socialism a means of gaining access to that one has not earned. Each hopes to gain that which is produced by his betters.

I am a geo-mutualist. I do not wish to steal anything that is rightfully earned and I want each individual to keep that which he/she produces. My brand of socialism is anti-state.

 

[Geoist]

"Left Libertarian," a term for a Marxist which the one using the term hopes will disguise what they promote.

Vast majority of left libertarians strongly oppose(d) Marx's "solutions." But nice try.