Source.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Is that your writing, or someone you agree with?
In any case, I have some issues with the possession theory of ownership. I only had time to skim the long article linked in the one you linked to, so I don't have a full grasp of all of the premises and ramifications. It seems to avoid the worst problems of the related theories that would have me lose ownership of my car the moment I park it, so I'll have to read it more thoroughly later.
As to Rothbard's idea that "workers" can homestead the factory, why only workers? Couldn't the bosses homestead it as well? Or is the guilt of having once participitated in a state supported enterprise, however attenuated and coerced by the preclusion of viable legitimate paths to productive enterprise via state aggression, render the owners forever barred from participating in free markets and property ownership? If the latter, wouldn't the workers share in that guilt, having recieved their paychecks from a coercion-supported enterprise? And, if the latter, what are the newly freed yet terminally guilty owners to do in these nascent coercion-free markets of justly disributed property, just curl up and die?
A lot of this smacks of lingering class distinctions between exploitive managers and exploited workers, rather than the agorist class distinction between coercive exploiters and the coerced and exploited.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
No, just a post I thought was interesting.
-Jon
I totally relate to the position that Per Bylund finds himself in. Being attacked by all sides while trying to reconcile the schools.
I agree with much of what he says... except on appropriation. I think he has the traditional Lockean view in mind though, the type espoused by Nozick and most libertarians. It's funny how few are cognizant of Hoppe's and de Jasay's reformulations of it, which can accommodate for abandonment.
Jon Irenicus: I agree with much of what he says... except on appropriation. I think he has the traditional Lockean view in mind though, the type espoused by Nozick and most libertarians. It's funny how few are cognizant of Hoppe's and de Jasay's reformulations of it, which can accommodate for abandonment. -Jon
Yea, I think that the abandonment/absentee-ownership/fuedalism issue can be resolved without totally throwing away the lockean theory of property.
Brainpolice:Yea, I think that the abandonment/absentee-ownership/fuedalism issue can be resolved without totally throwing away the lockean theory of property.
I agree, so long as non-use is not automatically considered abandonment. Though I don't get the "feudalism" epithet. What is it, that renting is no different than feudalism?
I would just like to point out that the concept of a least technological unit often gets left out of homesteading, and I think it is essential. I also agree with land as property in 3-D, not 2-D, so that unused resources above and below some already claimed land area remain unclaimed and available for homesteading.
i am not familiar with hoppe's allowance for abandonement, which i believe is essential. does anyone have a link? ...feeling lazy today...
also, i'm not sure this original article makes too much sense to me. it seems to be a rallying cry against big business, with political philsophy based upon being able to destroy corporate America. I am definitely against state privilege and any other distortion of a free market (which also include crime and black markets, not just government regulation, taxation, etc.); however, I am not convinced that doing so will make big business disappear outright. My point is that political philosophy should be based upon individual rights, not a central plan for society. If we secure individual rights and people still choose to consume corporate goods and prefer work in possibly dehumanizing conditions, then so be it. If we are to arbitrarily choose how people exercise their rights, we should call ourselves fascists. I simply think the author should try to make stronger points about why he thinks big business is privileged by the state - his arguments weren't entirely convincing. If he could show this better, than he would imply that his political philosophy, in being good for individuals would have more productive and widespread wealth, which is good for society. I felt more like his views were simply a means to an ends, with no real moral, at the individual or society level, judgment about his goal of destroying corporate America.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
I'm not sure where to find it - Kinsella has mentioned abandonment in works of his covering property ethics. Rothbard also mentions it in TEOL IIRC; maybe just contact Hoppe or Kinsella and ask where they've written on abandonment, to save time. I agree with you on the LTU/RTU - it's almost criminal to leave them out of any account of homesteading.