by the way, calling subjective mental experience "folk psychology" as i just did is tactically unwise; it buys into one of the eliminative materialists' central tenets: the silly trope that a person's subjective experiences are "a theory".
if anyone says this, you might just poke them with a needle until they implore you to stop. ask them why. if they say it hurts, say "that's just a theory". then they go "oh yeah,uh, i meant my neural net is stimulated in pattern xyz". then you ask how they know that. "there's no such thing as knowing, man". yeah, run away forever like that.
they claim people are getting confused by words into thinking that they believe and desire stuff, but they themselves are even more caught in verbal confusion. what they are missing is a complete understanding of what communication really is. something needs to be eliminated, but they are eliminating the wrong thing. eliminate subjective experience and you have no basis for gaining any purported scientific or empirical knowledge. empirical knowledge cannot but be subjectively apprehended.
It does sort of seem like "behaviorism gone bonkers", or almost a outlandish parody of "modernism" doesn't it?
it is clear that most commenters probably *don't* understand mutualism (but neither do most mutualists)
What is it? Is it a legal theory, a political position, an economic science, what is it?
William: It does sort of seem like "behaviorism gone bonkers", or almost a outlandish parody of "modernism" doesn't it?
yep the image i had while i was reading the article was that of a gaggle of behaviorists running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
What are they? (You already said plenty about what they are not.)
And we're supposed to be the nihilists. Oh well, I guess that curious term getting thrown at "right" libertarians is a bit more flattering than most other insulting buzz words.
Pretty much all I see hear is the typical an-cap preaching to the choir vulgarism.I continue to worry about this site given it's intellectual restrictions and limits. I should make clear my comment was not intended to be a full defense of mutualism(since i do not completely agree with it enough to be a mutualist) nor was it intended as an explanation of it.It was just a passing remark.I will response to other comments at a later date.I will not be defending mutualism as a package since it's not something I advocate as a package.I remain as before a left-Rothbardian with sympathies for agorism and mutualism.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Zangelbert Bingledack: perhaps you could start a thread detailing the issues you see with the capitalism vs. communism dichotomy?
perhaps you could start a thread detailing the issues you see with the capitalism vs. communism dichotomy?
1. Definitions of these terms.
2. Idea that the concepts are on such opposite ends of the spectrum.
3. Conflation of range of concepts under both of the terms.
4. An-cap and general libertarian opposition to any deviation towards communistesque terms/concepts...
That seems a good start.
William: Mutualism is a bit hard to nail down but I've been finding more and more respect for it.It's damn radical.It's a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps. "All I get from "left libertariansm" is square circles, " Have you even read any of it's writings? Have you read Roderick Long, Sam Konkin,Kevin Carson,Gary Chartier, Charles Johnson(radgeek) Etc? If so,you'd know we at least say things which need to be answered by an-caps. "At least Marx, for all of his kookiness, tried very hard to get rid of all that nonsense (though he failed in a spectacular manner, he was still a moralist with a bad economic theory). " A growing issue I have with an-caps is inability to seperate the truth/value in marxist thought from it's bunk/his followers bunk. "Proudhon was nothing but an ultra conservative religous whacko who supported LTV and called usury a bad thing." I don't necessarily agree with Proudhon on everything-I admit I haven't read all of his works yet- but what I do know of him is the former claim is a misrepresentation and this brief dismissal betrays his complexities.
Mutualism is a bit hard to nail down but I've been finding more and more respect for it.It's damn radical.It's a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps.
"All I get from "left libertariansm" is square circles, "
Have you even read any of it's writings? Have you read Roderick Long, Sam Konkin,Kevin Carson,Gary Chartier, Charles Johnson(radgeek) Etc? If so,you'd know we at least say things which need to be answered by an-caps.
"At least Marx, for all of his kookiness, tried very hard to get rid of all that nonsense (though he failed in a spectacular manner, he was still a moralist with a bad economic theory). "
A growing issue I have with an-caps is inability to seperate the truth/value in marxist thought from it's bunk/his followers bunk.
"Proudhon was nothing but an ultra conservative religous whacko who supported LTV and called usury a bad thing."
I don't necessarily agree with Proudhon on everything-I admit I haven't read all of his works yet- but what I do know of him is the former claim is a misrepresentation and this brief dismissal betrays his complexities.
Nielsio: Scott F: Mutualism is a bit hard to nail down but I've been finding more and more respect for it.It's damn radical.It's a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps. "It's still the same old anti-capitalist message." Depends what you mean by "Capitalism" which is a confusing package deal of concepts. But in essence I guess it is.However it's a re-understanding of that.It shows you can be pro-market,pro trade and anti 'capitalist'. "You can't trade money now for more money later (interest), you can't trade your labor for goods ('bosses', 'authority'), and you can't gain use rights in land by making valuable use out of it." That's closest to the mutualist position.Not all left-libs believe these things. I ,for one, am not opposed to interests,not opposed inherently to wage labour and not opposed to land ownership.There's a spectrum of views with very blurry lines between them. "There's a reason "it's hard to nail down", because their message is as undefendable as other anti- property rights schemes." Someone doesn't know their literature.As Stephan Kinsella says no one is truly anti-property merely anti-X conception of property. Mutualists oppose a specific kind of property concept(absentee ownership etc) not property per se.Furthermore not all left-libs oppose absentee ownership and once again there is a variety of views including Neo-lockean property common to an-cap with some differences.
Scott F: Mutualism is a bit hard to nail down but I've been finding more and more respect for it.It's damn radical.It's a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps.
"It's still the same old anti-capitalist message."
Depends what you mean by "Capitalism" which is a confusing package deal of concepts.
But in essence I guess it is.However it's a re-understanding of that.It shows you can be pro-market,pro trade and anti 'capitalist'.
"You can't trade money now for more money later (interest), you can't trade your labor for goods ('bosses', 'authority'), and you can't gain use rights in land by making valuable use out of it."
That's closest to the mutualist position.Not all left-libs believe these things.
I ,for one, am not opposed to interests,not opposed inherently to wage labour and not opposed to land ownership.There's a spectrum of views with very blurry lines between them.
"There's a reason "it's hard to nail down", because their message is as undefendable as other anti- property rights schemes."
Someone doesn't know their literature.As Stephan Kinsella says no one is truly anti-property merely anti-X conception of property. Mutualists oppose a specific kind of property concept(absentee ownership etc) not property per se.Furthermore not all left-libs oppose absentee ownership and once again there is a variety of views including Neo-lockean property common to an-cap with some differences.
John Ess: "I don't think that mutualism is against property or markets." It believes in both. "The message is that without the state, things become more "natural." Hence the shared terminolgy with biology." Now I'm not expert but I believe it's about mutually beneficial relations.Would that be correct BP? the mutuality principle? insofar as it is ,I support that principle. " Ergo, people become more cooperative -- even in the sense of ownership -- because it is the most efficient use of resources and the most desirable way to do things in the absence of coercion which manipulates the market. At the same time, one cannot destroy trade or ownership of resources all together, because this probably entails a state." Sounds a somewhat reasonable vague summary.
"I don't think that mutualism is against property or markets."
It believes in both.
"The message is that without the state, things become more "natural." Hence the shared terminolgy with biology."
Now I'm not expert but I believe it's about mutually beneficial relations.Would that be correct BP? the mutuality principle? insofar as it is ,I support that principle.
" Ergo, people become more cooperative -- even in the sense of ownership -- because it is the most efficient use of resources and the most desirable way to do things in the absence of coercion which manipulates the market. At the same time, one cannot destroy trade or ownership of resources all together, because this probably entails a state."
Sounds a somewhat reasonable vague summary.
William: "separate themselves from "right" libertarians," Even I do that now too.To be charitable to you guys here I don't class you as 'right' but 'center'. "hate "right" libertarians," Some Left-libertarian hate others don't.Roderick Long is of course a member of LVMI, Kevin Carson understands the an-cap use of capitalism but makes clear his use is different and Gary Chartier is friends with a number of LVMI fellows and non left-libertarians.
"separate themselves from "right" libertarians,"
Even I do that now too.To be charitable to you guys here I don't class you as 'right' but 'center'.
"hate "right" libertarians,"
Some Left-libertarian hate others don't.Roderick Long is of course a member of LVMI, Kevin Carson understands the an-cap use of capitalism but makes clear his use is different and Gary Chartier is friends with a number of LVMI fellows and non left-libertarians.
I can make this simple.Here's my understanding.
Left Libertarianism is a 'leftist' kind of libertarianism.It melds leftist economic/cultural concerns(e.g. workers,bosses,co-ops etc) with libertarian concern for property,liberty ,markets and rights.It views the cause of traditional leftist concerns('bargaining power, bloated corporations etc) as the state and it's influence and the solution to be free market anarchy.It is ethical political and likely though not necessarily cultural position.It's a means of moving beyonf restrictive labels such as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' to find the truth and confusion in all of these concepts and those in between.In the term capitalism we find a range of potentially distinct concepts lumped together. Left-Libertarianism offers the way for a kind of leftism like what an-caps know today but devoid of statism - a leftism which is pro market and anarchist.It's such a simple beautiful idea.
No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market.Left-libertarianism transcends these limited options and conflations and weirdly enough much of the seeds for this philosophy are already in classical liberalism, in libertarianism ,in the works of Mises Rothbard etc.
That's my attempt to explain it.
John Ess: "It is odd that they are different. " Not really.Left-libs trace the status quo back to statism while others whitewash or assume.It's rather simple epistemology. " Yet make few radical conclusions from this assesment." Both at very least assumption corporations would exist still.Neither talks of mutual aid,co-ops,worker owned businesses etc.Both have implicit ideas of how it would be. ", it seems that I wouldn't have a problem with how things emerge. Whether it is communal or market or whatever." Sounds more like anarchy without adjectives than an-cap. " As well, I think people who think in terms of decentralization have about the same ideas anyway." An-caps tend to think in terms of top down professional hierarchical organizations much like the status quo.Left-libs think in more egalitarian informal grassroots structures.
"It is odd that they are different. "
Not really.Left-libs trace the status quo back to statism while others whitewash or assume.It's rather simple epistemology.
" Yet make few radical conclusions from this assesment."
Both at very least assumption corporations would exist still.Neither talks of mutual aid,co-ops,worker owned businesses etc.Both have implicit ideas of how it would be.
", it seems that I wouldn't have a problem with how things emerge. Whether it is communal or market or whatever."
Sounds more like anarchy without adjectives than an-cap.
" As well, I think people who think in terms of decentralization have about the same ideas anyway."
An-caps tend to think in terms of top down professional hierarchical organizations much like the status quo.Left-libs think in more egalitarian informal grassroots structures.
William: It's damn radical.It's a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps This is important: this is nothing more than political sloganing. I can easily say I will "change the paradigms of squares and circles", but it is really not making much of a truth statement as much as it is a social hook. Nothing is really being stated clearly, and that which can not be stated clearly should not be stated at all.
It's damn radical.It's a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps
This is important: this is nothing more than political sloganing. I can easily say I will "change the paradigms of squares and circles", but it is really not making much of a truth statement as much as it is a social hook. Nothing is really being stated clearly, and that which can not be stated clearly should not be stated at all.
What I mean is the implied opposition to some extent does not exist.Too much here is conflated as if it is either ALL of one or ALL of the other.It skirts too close to the knee jerk randian response to anti-war sentiment whereas in this case it is in terms of criticism of corporations,existing economic structures/organization, worker-boss relations etc.All we're saying is consider the alternatives much much more closely.There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders.
Scott F:No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market.Left-libertarianism transcends these limited options and conflations and weirdly enough much of the seeds for this philosophy are already in classical liberalism, in libertarianism ,in the works of Mises Rothbard etc.
I get very skeptical any time I hear of something "transcending" a dichotomy. Can you perhaps define what capitalism means to you?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Scott F: Zangelbert Bingledack: perhaps you could start a thread detailing the issues you see with the capitalism vs. communism dichotomy? 1. Definitions of these terms. 2. Idea that the concepts are on such opposite ends of the spectrum. 3. Conflation of range of concepts under both of the terms. 4. An-cap and general libertarian opposition to any deviation towards communistesque terms/concepts...
i and i think many on here would agree that 1-3 are problems. 4 is rather broad. how do you define communism? or just any communisteque term of your choosing.
This "left libertarianism" is just sugar coated free market anarchism. It has no differences in reality, only in context and wording.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Scott F: what you're describing, free-market anarchy, sounds pretty appealing from an ancap perspective. i don't get what you mean about bosses, workers and co-ops, but perhaps it all boils down to a prediction that, absent the state, there wouldn't really be many companies in their present form. that they would tend to form in more co-operative ways. no one knows here; you could be right, and it wouldn't take anything away from the most deeply held tenets of ancap.
could it perhaps all come down to a difference in predictions of what would happen without a state? the rightists saying hierarchically organized companies would be the main providers and the leftists saying grassroots co-ops and the like would be the main providers.
not so much a disagreement about what to aim for, but about whose crystal ball is better?
Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders.
How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered? Are you omniscient?
What's wrong with absentee ownership? Just how absent does an owner have to be to lose legal title to his property?
BP:
"Territorial authority is incompatible with my notion of freedom, which is why I'm a land skeptic. Propertarian freedom isn't "robust" enough because in such a framework freedom is completely relative to what is allowed by territorial authority. I consider it a mere reformation of everything it has the pretense of being against, re-legitimized by nothing more than property aquisition norms."
How can freedom be defined as anything other than a private property rights system? We live in a world of scarcity. Economic goods are limited in supply and one party's use excludes another party's. Whenever one person uses a good, another person cannot, thereby limiting their freedom, and vice versa. Nor can anything other than the use of a good limit anybody's freedom. Whatever system is produced will define what freedoms each person has.
Stephen:What's wrong with absentee ownership? Just how absent does an owner have to be to lose legal title to his property?
I doubt you will get an answer to this question.
It involves the capacity to make decisions about one's life without being subjected to arbitrary and absolute power.
How (in principle) could I verify or falsify the statement "the power you are wielding over me is arbitrary"? My intuition tells me that the notion of "arbitrary" you are relying on is very central to your concept of freedom and if it wobbles so does "freedom". Also, how related is your conception of freedom to republican liberty (or less commonly neo-Roman liberty)? It sounds like it has more than coincidental similarities.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Me:
"What's wrong with absentee ownership? Just how absent does an owner have to be to lose legal title to his property?"
LS:
"I doubt you will get an answer to this question."
I agree. But these are fairly obvious question to ask. You would think that mutualists would have already thought of them and have ready answers.
Maybe it's his notions of freedom which are arbitrary. He keeps talking about what he considers this and that to be, what his position is, ect. all without any actual rationale or justification.
Stephen:I agree. But these are fairly obvious question to ask.
I agree, but I have never seen someone promoting this stuff defend it clearly and without contradiction in my 3 years here.
Left Libertarianism is a 'leftist' kind of libertarianism.It melds leftist economic/cultural concerns(e.g. workers,bosses,co-ops etc) with libertarian concern for
I have concerns about my cat and Netflix, what does this mean?
It's a means of moving beyonf restrictive labels such as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' to find the truth and confusion in all of these concepts and those in between.
I won't speak for others, but I think it is fair that in the LvMI institute there are very definite definitions of Capitalism and Socialism as defined by Mises himself, agree with the definitions or not, it is reasonable to assume that is the language discussed on Mises.org. That is what we are talking about, as there is a very restrictive definition between an apple to an orange, there ought to be restrictive definitions between scientific economic systems.
No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market
don't want to sound like a mutualist, but the question about use and time could be a bit misleading. Isn't property abandonment part of AnCap theory. Pretty sure I heard Lew Rockwell give a lecture on it once. Something like 20 years before it is available to homestead again, could have been 7, I really can't remember. Either way it seems like the difference between the two ideas is more on the focus and wording, than on being so different in kind. I do find their wording to be very strange. There is a mutualist on the FSP forum and he comes up with the craziest replies that just make me say, "how the hell did you even think that?"
Joe:Isn't property abandonment part of AnCap theory.
I don't believe it specifically is because ...
Joe:Pretty sure I heard Lew Rockwell give a lecture on it once. Something like 20 years before it is available to homestead again, could have been 7, I really can't remember.
That would be pretty arbitrary. Time is a poor measure of rights.
Joe:Either way it seems like the difference between the two ideas is more on the focus and wording, than on being so different in kind. I do find their wording to be very strange. There is a mutualist on the FSP forum and he comes up with the craziest replies that just make me say, "how the hell did you even think that?"
There are quite a few left-libertarians and mutualists, who don't think that property is currently owned by the right people, and advocate people in factories taking over the factories and throwing out management/owners, as the workers using a machine have a higher claim to it than the people (or their agents) who invested or attracted the capital to purchase that machine.
They aren't worried about cabins that have not been in use for 20 years. They want to take stuff with fairly clear title (because they don't believe the titles can ever be legit) right now.
It's crazy stuff.
I found this curious as well, though I was just wondering if he was simply stating an existential reality.
Also this:
I consider my notion of freedom "more robust" because it transcends territorial boundaries and has a wider bundle of requirements (sufficient conditions) for its realizability
"transcending territorial boundries" is a rather curious value statement, as well as stating you "require more conditions for freedom to be more free" and "this freedom as an end in itself is good". Am I translating this correct? And is this mutualism?
Brainpolice: Territorial authority is incompatible with my notion of freedom, which is why I'm a land skeptic. Propertarian freedom isn't "robust" enough because in such a framework freedom is completely relative to what is allowed by territorial authority. I consider it a mere reformation of everything it has the pretense of being against, re-legitimized by nothing more than property aquisition norms.
Territorial authority is incompatible with my notion of freedom, which is why I'm a land skeptic. Propertarian freedom isn't "robust" enough because in such a framework freedom is completely relative to what is allowed by territorial authority. I consider it a mere reformation of everything it has the pretense of being against, re-legitimized by nothing more than property aquisition norms.
I can't believe I'm about to write these words but here goes.BP I somewhat understand your argument.Recently it's been worrying me just how much authority is invested in the owner of land esp housing.They can practically dictate anyone within it's life.Now clearly there are limits- for example self ownership is before external ownership thus even on someones property slavery,murder,rape etc are still aggression and also reason limits what someone can demand e.g. no property owner can say that if you blink you've violated their rights because such is absurd.But beyond these limits there's a lot of way for a large amount of control that I'm tolerant of but quite unhappy about.It might be a property right but as Rothbard said a right to X ,does not imply use of X in a certain way is moral.
Brainpolice: . Standard ancap doesn't require you to believe in that much at all; it is a very simplified system that often functions as an excuse to dismiss considerations that aren't reducible to a few principles.
. Standard ancap doesn't require you to believe in that much at all; it is a very simplified system that often functions as an excuse to dismiss considerations that aren't reducible to a few principles.
Again BP I've come to agree. This is what I've wrote in this threat above. An-cap ignores issues like bargaining power, workplace democracy, feminism,racism,sexism, equality etc. It has a tendency towards dismissal of them often knee jerk based on the idea they are socialist or package dealing it fallaciously with Statism.
With all due respect to you guys here who to be clear I do not hate and bare no ill will, I find an-cap in it's analysis to be superficial to some extent ,it's substance restrictive and limited and it's scope close to conventional with reactionary strokes.
Justin Spahr-Summers: Scott F: No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market.Left-libertarianism transcends these limited options and conflations and weirdly enough much of the seeds for this philosophy are already in classical liberalism, in libertarianism ,in the works of Mises Rothbard etc. "I get very skeptical any time I hear of something "transcending" a dichotomy." It's possible if the dichotomy is false. "Can you perhaps define what capitalism means to you?" Well it doesn't really mean much to me anymore.It's too tangled up with things which it need not imply.I don't think Capitalism = free market that's for sure.I think kinds of Socialism= Free Market too. Capitalism has a least 3 meanings. 1. Free Market. 2. Current system of collusion of state and government -aka Corporatism. 3. System whereby owners of capital,landlords,bosses etc are dominant - marxist type definition. An-caps misunderstand how deep and extensive 2 is.
Scott F: No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market.Left-libertarianism transcends these limited options and conflations and weirdly enough much of the seeds for this philosophy are already in classical liberalism, in libertarianism ,in the works of Mises Rothbard etc.
"I get very skeptical any time I hear of something "transcending" a dichotomy."
It's possible if the dichotomy is false.
"Can you perhaps define what capitalism means to you?"
Well it doesn't really mean much to me anymore.It's too tangled up with things which it need not imply.I don't think Capitalism = free market that's for sure.I think kinds of Socialism= Free Market too.
Capitalism has a least 3 meanings.
1. Free Market.
2. Current system of collusion of state and government -aka Corporatism.
3. System whereby owners of capital,landlords,bosses etc are dominant - marxist type definition.
An-caps misunderstand how deep and extensive 2 is.
""i and i think many on here would agree that 1-3 are problems."
I don't think an-caps live outside the paradigm that you can be socialist and free market so 2 is still a problem for them.
I don't think an-caps seriously consider a free market without corporations or wage labour or boss-employee relations etc.
"4 is rather broad. how do you define communism?"
I'm still figuring it out.
What I mean to say to be clear is that anything which sounds traditionally leftist/socialist/communist in terms of rhetoric or concepts is very quickly opposed/mocked by an-caps. An-caps cannot conceive of free market leftism.
Libertyandlife: This "left libertarianism" is just sugar coated free market anarchism. It has no differences in reality, only in context and wording.
I disagree.It favours and imagines different institutions and structures,has different values-moral and cultural,different concerns...
Zangelbert Bingledack: Scott F:" what you're describing, free-market anarchy, sounds pretty appealing from an ancap perspective." well an-cap falls broadly under the free market anarchy umbrella yet it why I describe is so appealing why do an-caps oppose it so much? " i don't get what you mean about bosses, workers and co-ops," Left-libs seek to address the causes and solutions to issues related to them. ", there wouldn't really be many companies in their present form." If your talking about corporations which are a special kind of company then this is correct. "that they would tend to form in more co-operative ways. no one knows here; you could be right, and it wouldn't take anything away from the most deeply held tenets of ancap." I see no reason why this wouldn't be true.Your right this takes nothing away from much of an-cap yet an-cap seems to imply this wouldn't happen/ignores it. "could it perhaps all come down to a difference in predictions of what would happen without a state?" To some extent yet there's more to it than that. "the rightists saying hierarchically organized companies would be the main providers and the leftists saying grassroots co-ops and the like would be the main providers." That's a somewhat good assessment but like I say left-libs start from a completely different place,hold some different even opposed values,have a slightly different worldview,and have a much broader scope of concerns (thickism) compared to an-cap thinness. "not so much a disagreement about what to aim for, " I think there is strong disagreement on what to aim for.
Scott F:" what you're describing, free-market anarchy, sounds pretty appealing from an ancap perspective."
well an-cap falls broadly under the free market anarchy umbrella yet it why I describe is so appealing why do an-caps oppose it so much?
" i don't get what you mean about bosses, workers and co-ops,"
Left-libs seek to address the causes and solutions to issues related to them.
", there wouldn't really be many companies in their present form."
If your talking about corporations which are a special kind of company then this is correct.
"that they would tend to form in more co-operative ways. no one knows here; you could be right, and it wouldn't take anything away from the most deeply held tenets of ancap."
I see no reason why this wouldn't be true.Your right this takes nothing away from much of an-cap yet an-cap seems to imply this wouldn't happen/ignores it.
"could it perhaps all come down to a difference in predictions of what would happen without a state?"
To some extent yet there's more to it than that.
"the rightists saying hierarchically organized companies would be the main providers and the leftists saying grassroots co-ops and the like would be the main providers."
That's a somewhat good assessment but like I say left-libs start from a completely different place,hold some different even opposed values,have a slightly different worldview,and have a much broader scope of concerns (thickism) compared to an-cap thinness.
"not so much a disagreement about what to aim for, "
liberty student: Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders. "How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?" I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals.
"How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?"
I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals.
Stephen: What's wrong with absentee ownership? Just how absent does an owner have to be to lose legal title to his property?
I don't know the answer because I'm not a mutualist.But Mutualist Kevin Carson has said that simply leaving your property alone to go to work etc is not enough to lose it.
Scott F:With all due respect to you guys here who to be clear I do not hate and bare no ill will, I find an-cap in it's analysis to be superficial to some extent ,it's substance restrictive and limited and it's scope close to conventional with reactionary strokes.
This is just a knee jerk critique, unsubstantiated, unsourced and without any depth or indication of merit.
Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to claim otherwise, prove it.
William: Left Libertarianism is a 'leftist' kind of libertarianism.It melds leftist economic/cultural concerns(e.g. workers,bosses,co-ops etc) with libertarian concern for "I have concerns about my cat and Netflix, what does this mean?" Care for....You know the meaning.I won't debate with some sort of Positivist crazy. It's a means of moving beyond restrictive labels such as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' to find the truth and confusion in all of these concepts and those in between. "I won't speak for others, but I think it is fair that in the LvMI institute there are very definite definitions of Capitalism and Socialism as defined by Mises himself, agree with the definitions or not, it is reasonable to assume that is the language discussed on Mises.org. That is what we are talking about, as there is a very restrictive definition between an apple to an orange, there ought to be restrictive definitions between scientific economic systems." True enough but that misses the point.I'm arguing that the Misean definitions of Socialism are so limited as to almost exclude voluntary socialism and to ignore free market socialism.Misean definitions of Capitalism conflate it and free market,wage labour etc.It ignores other definitions used. No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market "Why not?" Because Capitalism does not imply free market.You can be a kind of Socialist and Free Market.In anycase both terms are so confused as to be pretty much unusable. "Also, to paraphrase another poster; are we talking about "crystal balls", because I think most of us here are trying to discuss the means and not the ends." Proper concern should be for both ends and means.
"I have concerns about my cat and Netflix, what does this mean?"
Care for....You know the meaning.I won't debate with some sort of Positivist crazy.
It's a means of moving beyond restrictive labels such as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' to find the truth and confusion in all of these concepts and those in between.
"I won't speak for others, but I think it is fair that in the LvMI institute there are very definite definitions of Capitalism and Socialism as defined by Mises himself, agree with the definitions or not, it is reasonable to assume that is the language discussed on Mises.org. That is what we are talking about, as there is a very restrictive definition between an apple to an orange, there ought to be restrictive definitions between scientific economic systems."
True enough but that misses the point.I'm arguing that the Misean definitions of Socialism are so limited as to almost exclude voluntary socialism and to ignore free market socialism.Misean definitions of Capitalism conflate it and free market,wage labour etc.It ignores other definitions used.
Scott F: liberty student: Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders. "How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?" I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals.
What have you seen written? Source please.
Because you see no ancap literature, does that mean ancap literature does not exist? Are you omniscient?
Who has made a knee jerk dismissal? Source please.
Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? I need to know if you are omniscient, or if you are just a regular mind reader. Please enlighten us.