Freedom4Me73986: Worker coops are ENTIRELY based on mob rule. 51% of the members get to dictate everything to the 49%. And how are coops supposed to function AT ALL? Sure a 10-person coop probably could manage but what happens in a factory of 200+ workers??? Coops are just democracy and statism under a different name/form.
Worker coops are ENTIRELY based on mob rule. 51% of the members get to dictate everything to the 49%. And how are coops supposed to function AT ALL? Sure a 10-person coop probably could manage but what happens in a factory of 200+ workers??? Coops are just democracy and statism under a different name/form.
A worker coop is like statist democracy the same way a heirachical firm is like an autocratic state.
Freedom4Me73986: The FSP is full of mutualists and left-libs who openly state they want to end capitalism.
The FSP is full of mutualists and left-libs who openly state they want to end capitalism.
Define your terms. Keep in mind left libertarians don't use capitalism as a synonym for a free market the way many at the LvMI do.
Freedom4Me73986: If they get their way private property will be abolished.
If they get their way private property will be abolished.
This simply isn't true.
While it's true Carson uses "capitalism" in the corporatist sense, mutualists do not quite want to let the AnCap idea of free markets prevail.
Wheylous: While it's true Carson uses "capitalism" in the corporatist sense, mutualists do not quite want to let the AnCap idea of free markets prevail.
I think of as they want to see free markets prevail but with different property rights.
"While it's true Carson uses "capitalism" in the corporatist sense, mutualists do not quite want to let the AnCap idea of free markets prevail."
There's actually some interesting substance to this notion, and it may be a good way to parse out the anarchist left-libertarians from the libertarians that like having "left" in front of their label.
Carson and those like him simply believe that a free market would lead to labor receiving the full value of its product. The question, then, is what if their idea of free markets don't actually do anything that they think the intended results should be? Would they support the ends simply because of seemingly justified means, or would they adapt their philosophy Voltarine de Cleyre or Brainpolice style? I think a positive answer to the former shows the libertarians that like the word left, and a positive answer to the latter shows the market anarchists.
Birthday Pony: Carson and those like him simply believe that a free market would lead to labor receiving the full value of its product. The question, then, is what if their idea of free markets don't actually do anything that they think the intended results should be? Would they support the ends simply because of seemingly justified means, or would they adapt their philosophy Voltarine de Cleyre or Brainpolice style? I think a positive answer to the former shows the libertarians that like the word left, and a positive answer to the latter shows the market anarchists.
I use market anarchism as an umbrella term for schools of anarchist thought that want a market for law, Tucker, Rothbard, Konkin and Carson are all, in my mind, market anarchists. I think the wikipedia page for market anarchism backs me up on that.
I think this is where using a definition of socialism as an ends comes in handy. If we define socialism as putting each man in possession of his full product, and market anarchism as a libertarian legal order rooted within a polycentric legal system; then people who move towards or switch to social anarchism because they believe that market anarchy will not achieve socialism are clearly socialists before they are market anarchists.
I maintain a property-based ethic as foundational to a free-society. Rights are property rights, for instance.
Left-libs believe property is evil, and have crazy ideas how it can be transferred and exchanged, which amounts to theft and aggression. I can't accept a view of property that violates the NAP.
Mutualists in the FSP.
I maintain a property-based ethic as foundational to a free-society. Rights are property rights, for instance. Left-libs believe property is evil, and have crazy ideas how it can be transferred and exchanged, which amounts to theft and aggression. I can't accept a view of property that violates the NAP.
Yes. That's why left-libertarianism is completely removed from real libertarianism.
She isn't a free stater, she is a NH native.
Voltairine
Oh man, that's the most amazing girl's name ever. The sounds is so... just... amazing...
Propertarianism and left-libertarianism are not mutually exclusive.
Evilsceptic: Propertarianism and left-libertarianism are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps not, but it seems the defining difference is their views of property and beyond that certain metaphysical beliefs (which led to the differeing views of property in the first place).
Mutualists openly call to "abolish private property." That's enough for me.
"Mutualists openly call to "abolish private property." That's enough for me."
Carson is probably the only Mutualist I can think of that fits in the left-lib category. Most people that identify as left-libertarians are proprietarians as well...
Anenome: It seems the defining difference is their views of property and beyond that certain metaphysical beliefs (which led to the differeing views of property in the first place).
It seems the defining difference is their views of property and beyond that certain metaphysical beliefs (which led to the differeing views of property in the first place).
Roderick Long is a Lockean left-libertarian, I understand most of the people at The Center For A Stateless Society are as well.
"Mutualists openly call to "abolish private property." That's enough for me." Carson is probably the only Mutualist I can think of that fits in the left-lib category. Most people that identify as left-libertarians are proprietarians as well...
Name me some besides Roderick Long. And how is Carson a propertarian?
Freedom4Me73986: Mutualists openly call to "abolish private property." That's enough for me.
Lolwut? If you would just read Rothbard's critique of the (mutualist) Tucker-Spooner doctrine you might be able to better understand the differences between the two positions. You hear something you don't like, and rather than find out exactly what they mean or what their arguement is, you instead write them off as crypto-communists.
"Name me some besides Roderick Long. And how is Carson a propertarian?"
As far as I can tell, Carson is pretty ambivalent on property theory. He'll go on at lengths about posession versus property and then at the end tack on that whatever people chose to operate by is A-OK with him.
Birthday Pony: As far as I can tell, Carson is pretty ambivalent on property theory. He'll go on at lengths about posession versus property and then at the end tack on that whatever people chose to operate by is A-OK with him.
In Studies In Mutualist Politcal Economy Carson states that
Kevin Carson, Studies In Mutualist Politcal Economy, p200: None of these alternative sets of rules for system of property allocation is self-evidently right. No ownership claim can be deduced logically from the principle of self-ownership alone, without the "'overlay' of a property system," or a system of "allocation rules." No such system, whether Lockean, Georgist, or Mutualist, can be proved correct. Any proof requires a common set of allocation rules, and a particular set of allocation rules for property can only be established by social consensus, not by deduction from the axiom of self ownership. So Carson is fundamentally consequentialist when it comes to property rights, | Post Points: 5
If you have actually read any literature (you clearly have not), you would know that it is impossible for private property to be abolished. So I don't know why you're worried.
Libertarian Socialist > Libertarian Communist >Libertarian Marxist (Autonomist; Council Communist; Situationist) Libertarian Socialist > Libertarian Communist > Social Anarchist (Anarcho-communist) Libertarian Socialist > Anarchist > Social Anarchist (Anarcho-communist) Libertarian Socialist > Anarchist > Market Anarchist (Mutualist; Individualist Anarchist) Classical Liberal > Left-libertarian
Libertarian Socialist > Libertarian Communist > Social Anarchist (Anarcho-communist)
Libertarian Socialist > Anarchist > Social Anarchist (Anarcho-communist)
Libertarian Socialist > Anarchist > Market Anarchist (Mutualist; Individualist Anarchist)
Classical Liberal > Left-libertarian
This just gives me a headache..
Libertarian Socialist > Libertarian Communist >Libertarian Marxist (Autonomist; Council Communist; Situationist)
?????
I thought left-lib and mutualist were used interchangably.
BTW how exactly do left-libs and muties define a "land monopoly" from legit property?
Freedom4Me73986: I thought left-lib and mutualist were used interchangably.
Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms.
Freedom4Me73986: BTW how exactly do left-libs and muties define a "land monopoly" from legit property?
Legitimate property has been homesteaded, the land monopoly refers to illegitimate property is land that has has been claimed through fiat by the state.
Freedom4Me73986: I thought left-lib and mutualist were used interchangably. Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms.
K. So it's an umbrella term then?
Freedom4Me73986: BTW how exactly do left-libs and muties define a "land monopoly" from legit property? Legitimate property has been homesteaded, the land monopoly refers to illegitimate property is land that has has been claimed through fiat by the state.
So why are muties against landlords and paying rent?
Freedom4Me73986: Freedom4Me73986: I thought left-lib and mutualist were used interchangably. Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms. K. So it's an umbrella term then? Yes. However it is often used to refer only to left-wing market-anarchists, who range from left-Rothbardians to mutualists and are best represented by The Center For A Stateless Society
Freedom4Me73986: Freedom4Me73986: I thought left-lib and mutualist were used interchangably. Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms. K. So it's an umbrella term then?
Freedom4Me73986: So why are muties against landlords and paying rent?
The main reason is because they don't believe in full private property in land. Continueous use is necessary for property in land under mutualism. So by claiming rent from someone you are making them charge a toll for living on their own land, which is theft.
However historically the state has acted to both bring rents up by holding land out of production and enforcing planning laws, make sure landlords owned the frontier land through land grants, and take landfrom it's rightful owners and given it to favored landlords. So while a Lockean would reject the mutualist philosophical critique of rents, the historical critique has something to it.
Evilsceptic:The main reason is because they don't believe in full private property in land. Continueous use is necessary for property in land under mutualism. So by claiming rent from someone you are making them charge a toll for living on their own land, which is theft.
Essentially, then, they make an exception against full private property when it comes to land, because... they don't want to pay rent.
However, I think the basis for that exception "proves too much". If one leaves his land to go to work, then under strict occupation-and-use doctrine, it's no longer his. Also, a person may not be occupying and/or using every piece of his land at a given time. So we see that there are issues of granularity in both space and time.
Once they start to treat occupation-and-use doctrine in a less-than-strict sense, there's no way to qualitatively differentiate between their sense of it and the sense in which Lockean property theory can be said to treat it.
Evilsceptic:However historically the state has acted to both bring rents up by holding land out of production and enforcing planning laws, make sure landlords owned the frontier land through land grants, and take landfrom it's rightful owners and given it to favored landlords. So while a Lockean would reject the mutualist philosophical critique of rents, the historical critique has something to it.
Indeed. The state has followed neither occupation-and-use property theory nor Lockean property theory.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Then it's easy to ridicule AnCaps by saying "Essentially, then, they make an exception against laws when it comes to property, because... they don't want to pay taxes"
If one leaves his land to go to work, then under strict occupation-and-use doctrine, it's no longer his.
Wheylous:Then it's easy to ridicule AnCaps by saying "Essentially, then, they make an exception against laws when it comes to property, because... they don't want to pay taxes"
No, anarcho-capitalists oppose the state - and thus state-made law - per se. No exceptions.
Wheylous:I think they solve this through the "reasonability" response :P
My point is that that's no solution at all. Lockean property theory also provides for "reasonability", including for such things as abandonment.
Wheylous, where's your avatar gone? He always used to cheer me up. What was it anyway?
I think Wheylous makes a good point. As far as I can tell, ancaps define the state as an illegitimate owner of land. If a person or group could own unhomesteaded land, then that would be a state.
By "own unhomesteaded land", you mean "be considered to own the land without homesteading it first"?
Otherwise, it appears that I refuted Wheylous' point, so (with all due respect to Wheylous) maybe it wasn't such a good point.
it appears that I refuted Wheylous' point, so (with all due respect to Wheylous)
You bastard!
As to my avatar, he will be back soon. It was the lulzsec logo :P
So you agree that I refuted it? :P
Yes. Though I think I missed your point about it being an exception to their other property rights. I get what you're saying now (I don't know enough about mutualism to say whether I agree or not).
I agree with you that one or more people controlling, or being considered to own (i.e. legitimately control), land without homesteading it first would constitute a de facto state. However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I allow homesteading to be performed by someone on behalf of someone else.
I'm glad you get what I'm saying now about the occupation-and-use adherents' exception against full property rights in land. Actually, though, the exception goes farther - it extends to all forms of property. The reason remains the same - they don't want to pay rent. What I'm wondering is why.
RothbardsDisciple: it is impossible for private property to be abolished. So I don't know why you're worried.
it is impossible for private property to be abolished. So I don't know why you're worried.
Because people still insist on trying to abolish it, despite its impossibility, and attempting to negate reality has major, major consequences. Some people have decided that men don't need to eat food to live, but if they try to force that on a whole society they become very dangerous.
"Because people still insist on trying to abolish it, despite its impossibility"
*sigh*
Here's an important distinction to make when speaking broadly of socialist views on property, from a guy who is more or less considered an authority on the matter:
"The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production." -Karl Marx
Similar sentiments appear in Proudhon, Tucker, Goldman, Berkman, etc. Opposition to private property is not opposition to individual property, or possession, or appropriation broadly defined.
As you were...
I certainly did not arrive at anarchocap through classical liberalism. I found this to be the logical end for my pursuit of a true rightist, individualist defence of private property. In answer to the thread, I am not a leftist because I am not a collectivist. Even if some leftists are anarch they still are collectivist and still lack that respect for other peoples business, for example as a right libertarian I dont mind the existence of racists because although I do not personally hold their opinions, they are their opinions and therefore none of my business. Left libertarians on the other hand would still want to stamp out that racism. They tend to believe in the greater good.
Birthday Pony: "Because people still insist on trying to abolish it, despite its impossibility" *sigh* Here's an important distinction to make when speaking broadly of socialist views on property, from a guy who is more or less considered an authority on the matter: "The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production." -Karl Marx Similar sentiments appear in Proudhon, Tucker, Goldman, Berkman, etc. Opposition to private property is not opposition to individual property, or possession, or appropriation broadly defined. As you were...
A. Marx is virtually unreadable, as that quote demonstrates. One can only hope it's less a cloud of high-sounding equivocation and roundaboutness when read in context. Hard to imagine tho.
B. I'll quote you again what the Chinese farmers were told when the communists took over:
They asked who owns the fields, and were told "The People do."
They then asked who owns the teeth in their mouth and were told, "The People do."
That is both a negation of individual property AND self-ownership.
That is the substitution of actual private property for fake share in corporate ownership of everything, which really means controlling and owning nothing. If you cannot control the fate of a thing, you do not own it. Despite the rhetoric of corporate ownership, of the people owning everything collectively, the actual result of communism is that those whom control society own everything and everyone else owns nothing. In fact, the poeple themselves are owned by the power elite.
Mao's great leap forward, which killed some 20 million Chinese, resulted from trying to communize the farms. THe Khmer rouge had similar problems, but worse. And North Korea cannot feed itself. Russia too let food rot on the farms while the people starved, and begged wheat and farming know-how off western countries.
What turned things around was an agreement in one village to start working their own property again, rather than collectively. The communists caught on when productivity soared. The officials later allowed this model to propagate across China, thus ending the starvation, and also striking a blow to communist concepts of collective ownership that redound into today's free-market-friendly communism in China.