AdrianHealey:No, that's a complete misunderstanding of at least Ostrom's work (which could be Carsson's fault), nor do I think that's Carsson's idea.
Who's talking about Ostrom's work? I'm talking about the Carson's article.
AdrianHealey:Why would 'being able to sell' in any way be relevant for the question if it's a private property relationship?
If you can't [at minimum] sell your share of ownership, then this sounds more like a Kibbutz then anything else.
Caley McKibbin:If they could it would not prove ownership.
True. But if they couldn't, it proves they have none.
Caley McKibbin:In the case of stock market shares, you have limited privileges that you can exercise.
The privileges and control you have are proportional to the amount of shares you own, and the contractual limitations placed on them is what is sold and bought on the open market. I'm talking about it in principle. Not the hampered version of the stock market we have today.
Exactly the point. You can't answer the charge that the state has tilted things towards the rich by talking about what happens on a free market. As far as demands for more detailed arguments - he has a few books.
I don't see how "commons" are necessarily incompatible with libertarianism. However, "commons" to me are necessarily unowned. Take a river, for instance. Can anyone be said to actually own it? Yet even if it's unowned, people can still homestead use-rights from it.
With land, however, it seems trickier. For example, let's say there's a stretch of pasture that no one owns but many ranchers use. The ranchers have a system of allocated grazing rights based on homesteading. Now let's say someone comes along and buys the pasture. He wants to build a fence around it to keep the ranchers out. Should he be allowed to do this? My answer is no, because the ranchers have pre-existing easements over the land.
Notice that this setup doesn't preclude people from buying "common lands". After all, they're considered unowned, not "commonly owned". One might ask how land could be developed if there are already easements over it. The answer is that easements can be bought and sold. Of course, the price may vary from place to place.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
DD5: AdrianHealey:Why would 'being able to sell' in any way be relevant for the question if it's a private property relationship? If you can't [at minimum] sell your share of ownership, then this sounds more like a Kibbutz then anything else.
I'm not familiar with how Kibbutz work; could you clarify this?
In any case, like I commented: I'm not aware of any lack of ability to get away from ownership or to get ownership. Doesn't have to be 'selling' per se - could depend on the rules governing the common.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Autolykos: I don't see how "commons" are necessarily incompatible with libertarianism. However, "commons" to me are necessarily unowned. Take a river, for instance. Can anyone be said to actually own it? Yet even if it's unowned, people can still homestead use-rights from it. With land, however, it seems trickier. For example, let's say there's a stretch of pasture that no one owns but many ranchers use. The ranchers have a system of allocated grazing rights based on homesteading. Now let's say someone comes along and buys the pasture. He wants to build a fence around it to keep the ranchers out. Should he be allowed to do this? My answer is no, because the ranchers have pre-existing easements over the land. Notice that this setup doesn't preclude people from buying "common lands". After all, they're considered unowned, not "commonly owned". One might ask how land could be developed if there are already easements over it. The answer is that easements can be bought and sold. Of course, the price may vary from place to place.
In the terminology used by Ostrom - and I'm agreeing with that terminology - what you call 'easements', would be an example of a 'commonly owned - with the necessary caveat that this is how I read her work. All the ranchers together own it and have to find a way amongst themselves to organize that piece of their property. If someone wants to buy it, it seems fair that he deals with all the ranchers that own it, as a common. (Or someone can buy of the other ranches for the right to exclude them, thus making it individual private property.)
AdrianHealey: I'm not familiar with how Kibbutz work; could you clarify this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
AdrianHealey:In the terminology used by Ostrom - and I'm agreeing with that terminology - what you call 'easements', would be an example of a 'commonly owned - with the necessary caveat that this is how I read her work. All the ranchers together own it and have to find a way amongst themselves to organize that piece of their property. If someone wants to buy it, it seems fair that he deals with all the ranchers that own it, as a common. (Or someone can buy of the other ranches for the right to exclude them, thus making it individual private property.)
I prefer the term "easement" because it distinguishes use-right ownership from actual property ownership. Otherwise, it does appear (from what you write) that Ostrom makes about the same points as I do. The differences are mainly, if not entirely, semantic in nature. Also, you bring up a good point about one rancher buying out the rest to have complete ownership of the land. I missed that case for some reason.
Anyone who thinks Kevin Carson is a Marxist doesn't know what they're talking about. He's very similar to a Tuckerite individualist anarchist, only he actually makes some use of Austrian economics and deals with a more contemporary historical context. As for the article, he's right that state ownership and common ownership are not identical.
Kevin Carson is no Marxist. Even his labor theory of value is adapted to include marginalist insights.
vaguelyhumanoid: Kevin Carson is no Marxist. Even his labor theory of value is adapted to include marginalist insights.
He basically attempted an austrian-classical synthesis for individualist anarchism, partly with a reinterpretation of history. One can think what one wants of that attempt, but it definitely is not Marxism.
I'm talking about it in principle.
In principle you can agree to any arrangement that makes sense. A % share of heterogeneous objects makes no sense. If you own 10% of shares in a firm and a thief steals a computer from an office, how much does the thief owe you? Only the explicit terms of the share privileges can tell how to handle that, if there are any. Thinking of such terms as ownership of the computer is stretching concepts like rubber bands to the point that they have no meaning.
That leads to the following problem. Whereas Carson claims that there is a distinction between state property and commons, what the arguments really amount to is abolishing all distinction between property and commons. Whereas he claims that there is a structural difference between a "corporation" and a "cooperative", there is no explanation of what it is.
Where do you see the Scandinavian corporatist model of the state?
I assumed that she was Scandinavian from the name. Anyway, she got a prize from the Bank of Sweden. It's probably that they see it as helpful to their agenda.
P.S. guess =/= assertion
Whatever happened to Vichy Army (Liberte)? She was smart and very entertaining. Does she still blog?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
No, sadly I think she has left the internet. I think she got very frustrated with people not listening. Hopefully she'll pop again somewhere in some way.
?
JAlanKatz:Fine, you're not calling for him to be silenced, you're calling for libertarian foundations not to have a top libertarian scholar publish his work. That's reminiscent of how Koch treated Rothbard.
Top libertarian scholar? He's big online. So is BrainPolice. Whoopity doo.
Also, conflating Rothbard with Carson is just ridiculous.
So is BrainPolice.
Is he really? Cool.
Y'all been trolled. Vichy was no girl. That's an avatar. She had at least 3 or 4 accounts here, most of them female, all of them different.
I'm not aware of BP's multiple, well-researched books.