liberty student: Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous. I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist.
Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous.
I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist.
Thors is correct, you are simply misrepresenting me and largely ignoring the content of my arguments. I am not "just another anti-capitalist", I have a very specific viewpoint. If you really want to talk about my youtube experience, and if you really knew about it, you'd know that I have consistantly debated against the Chomsky/Zinn crowd there and dismissed them as state-socialists. My expressed viewpoint on youtube is left-libertarian market anarchism, mixed with anarchism without adjectives or pluralism. I have consistantly and explicitly defended the concept of free markets and individualism.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord's title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn't actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements, it won't remain a "free society" for long. But more than likely a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements isn't realy a free society to begin with - it's an archiac and backwards society. Whenver I hear you speaking I get the impression that you hate the state for the same reason you were annoyed at your parents when they sent you to bed too early, it's a shame that all those activies you like are contingent on the state
Brainpolice:At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord's title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn't actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements, it won't remain a "free society" for long. But more than likely a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements isn't realy a free society to begin with - it's an archiac and backwards society.
Whenver I hear you speaking I get the impression that you hate the state for the same reason you were annoyed at your parents when they sent you to bed too early, it's a shame that all those activies you like are contingent on the state
Give me a break with your weak arm-chair psychoanalysis and repetition of a ridiculous premise that's already been debunked (I.E. that anything that's not socially and economically conservative is the product of the state).
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy. Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I'll leave to see where this is going.
Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I'll leave to see where this is going.
You're just repeating the same tired old arguments and completely side-stepping my points.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: Please reference some of these specific rationales. That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it. Because we're talking economics. But thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
Brainpolice: Please reference some of these specific rationales. That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
Please reference some of these specific rationales.
That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
Because we're talking economics. But thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
No, we're not talking just about economics. We're talking about libertarian social theory, I.E. interpersonal ethics. You should know better than to drift into economism. Furthermore, there is no reason for you to act as if economics is above or something completely unrelated to philosophy given that it's entirely dependant on epistemology.
It seems to me that no one could possibly know if a stateless society such as the one being argued for would result in a more "egalitarian" society or a "less egalitarian" society, as we have no way of knowing all of the ways in which the state distorts the "market" of human interactions and whatnot.
It is possible that some sort of natural spontaneous "egalitarianism" would occur (much like spontaneous order can), and it is also possible that their would be other inequalities that would emerge. We simply can not know the end result for sure, but we CAN know that whatever the result, it would be a far more ethical and just society, as each person would be free to live their lives as they will without an outside agent coercively aggressing against them.
Just a thought, anyway.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy. Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I'll leave to see where this is going. You're just repeating the same tired old arguments and completely side-stepping my points.
Then stop the nonsense and refute it again.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice:We're talking about libertarian social theory, I.E. interpersonal ethics.
Which is neutral in this case.
Brainpolice:No, we're not talking just about economics.
I was, and I started this topic so you're just taking it off course, as I already stated. One must wonder why, you're taking meaningful economic discussion off course in favour of inconclusive arguments about how feudalism violates "your rights".
sirmonty: It seems to me that no one could possibly know if a stateless society such as the one being argued for would result in a more "egalitarian" society or a "less egalitarian" society, as we have no way of knowing all of the ways in which the state distorts the "market" of human interactions and whatnot. It is possible that some sort of natural spontaneous "egalitarianism" would occur (much like spontaneous order can), and it is also possible that their would be other inequalities that would emerge. We simply can not know the end result for sure, but we CAN know that whatever the result, it would be a far more ethical and just society, as each person would be free to live their lives as they will without an outside agent coercively aggressing against them. Just a thought, anyway.
While your argument has the spirit of trying to remain value-free and neutral, I disagree because we CAN make some general statements about how the state warps the economy. We can determine that the state buttresses certain areas of the economy, and hence the logical result of removing the state from those areas is that they don't have as much support and have to compete on their own merits. We can determine that the state restricts certain oppurtunies for people in certain areas, and hence the logical result of removing the state is an increase in oppurtunities in those areas. You yourself assert that the result is a more ethical and just society, and non-aggression is not the only criteria for something being ethical and just. The removal of arbitrary state privilege and monopoly logically implies a more pluralistic order. In turn, a more pluralistic order is inherently less heirarchical when viewed as a whole, as there is more independance from specific concentrations.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy. Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I'll leave to see where this is going. You're just repeating the same tired old arguments and completely side-stepping my points. Then stop the nonsense and refute it again.
It already has been refuted in the very post you repeat it in response to. You haven't responded to my argument, just reasserted your premise.
You are not being neutral, you're asserting that libertarianism inherently implies conservatism, extreme heirarchy, feudalism and so on. You're also overlooking that those systems and ideologies are not consistant with the basic interpersonal theory of libertarianism. Conservative communitarianism is conceptually incompatible with libertarianism, and feudal land arrangements are incompatible with any consistant homesteading theory.
Give me a break. You're full of shit.
Brainpolice:While your argument has the spirit of trying to remain value-free and neutral, I disagree because we CAN make some general statements about how the state warps the economy. We can determine that the state buttresses certain areas of the economy, and hence the logical result of removing the state from those areas is that they don't have as much support and have to compete on their own merits. We can determine that the state restricts certain oppurtunies for people in certain areas, and hence the logical result of removing the state is an increase in oppurtunities in those areas. You yourself assert that the result is a more ethical and just society, and non-aggression is not the only criteria for something being ethical and just. The removal of arbitrary state privilege and monopoly logically implies a more pluralistic order. In turn, a more pluralistic order is inherently less heirarchical when viewed as a whole, as there is more independance from specific concentrations.
Well, I am saying that while we may be able to make general statements of how the state warps the economy and even warps the "market" of human interaction, we cannot possibly calculate to what degree it does to either with any degree of accuracy. While it is true that certain privileges and opportunities are restricted by the state, it is also true that others are propagated and favored by the state, so there is no telling the level of egalitarianism or hierarchy that would exist in a post-stateless society, respectfully, but we can tell that each person would have liberty to be free of coercive aggression. While in some respects people may become "more equal," in other respects they just as easily may become "less equal." I just do not see how anyone can calculate it with any degree of accuracy, but we can know a priori that it is a much more ethical and just society, regardless of our personal preferences for specific outcomes of equality/inequality.
I don't think feudalism is the correct term to describe land production under the free market, although it may be feudal-like in some senses. Feudalism was principally about security. The system got started under the Roman empire at a time when people would sell themselves as slaves to large land holders, slaves being exempt from paying taxes. Then the church reformed this arrangement after the collapse of the empire into a milder form called serfdom.
The fact is that at any given time there were very few free land owners, however competition between land owners resulted in many of the middle ages' growth periods. The colonization by bastides instituted new forms of property in what would have been under-utilized land.
The problem of land is more complicated in America than in Europe. In Europe the local communes and cities can all be traced back to some form of private land estate and it is obvious they would have to be restored in order to function, but in America the colonization of the land was done by government. There is a sense of entitlement amongst American property holders that tells them that they cannot be told what to do with their land, but they expect the benefits of land tenancy such as roads and water to be delivered to them. The way the land was subdivided is also much messier, based on an abstract cartesian grid with little relevance to the land's actual structure.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: I don't think feudalism is the correct term to describe land production under the free market, although it may be feudal-like in some senses. Feudalism was principally about security. The system got started under the Roman empire at a time when people would sell themselves as slaves to large land holders, slaves being exempt from paying taxes. Then the church reformed this arrangement after the collapse of the empire into a milder form called serfdom.
I wouldn`t say that. Actually what happened was that serfdom was introduced to tie down freemen - tenant farmers - down to the land of the latifundist. (Before that latifundia replaced small farms due to state machinations.) This process was already started under Diocletian before Rome accepted Christianity. But serfdom is not the only aspect of feudalism.
CorporateGhost:And what race, gender or religion would be disadvantaged in a free society? which race do you think that will perish due to its inherent inferiority and inability to provide for themselves? would it be blacks, latinos or indians?
Because it is politically correct not to discuss differences in religion, race or sexual preference, doesn't change the fact that they are not the same, they lead to different social orders, decision, and capabilities.
Which is at a deficit in which situation isn't my point. It's that its left mythology (and ridiculous taboo) that they are to be considered non-factors and anyone discussing them is persona-non-grata in the liberty movement.
CorporateGhost:That makes anarchy sound like an eugenicist's fantasy.
Statements like these, really make me empathize with Walter Blocks recent conflict with the PC police. Nowhere have I condemned any group, and yet you associate eugenics with my statements, which if you're even marginally intelligent, you have to admit are not unreasonable or unfounded.
They are just undesirable, and offend your sensibilities.
Brainpolice:and if you really knew about it, you'd know that I have consistantly debated against the Chomsky/Zinn crowd there and dismissed them as state-socialists.
Yeah, I was particularly moved by your argument that instead of attacking capitalism and the state withering away, one could attack the state and wither capitalism away.
Anti-capitalist. You just try to be coy about it.
Brainpolice:While your argument has the spirit of trying to remain value-free and neutral, I disagree because we CAN make some general statements about how the state warps the economy. We can determine that the state buttresses certain areas of the economy, and hence the logical result of removing the state from those areas is that they don't have as much support and have to compete on their own merits.
Which is precisely the point being made here and elsewhere on the forum, by Giles, myself and others.
The difference is, when you don't like the conclusions drawn about where the state interferes and distorts, you attack.
Brainpolice:We can determine that the state restricts certain oppurtunies for people in certain areas, and hence the logical result of removing the state is an increase in oppurtunities in those areas.
Yes, the state feeds off the labour of the productive, and distributes to the unproductive whether they are rich or poor. Good luck getting a red libertarian to buy into an honest and rational class theory.
sirmonty, I am piling on your post here, but a socialist will always insist he can calculate. Without the "superior knowledge" socialism claims to have about order, structure and production, none of it's ideas can even be considered for a fraction of a moment as based on sound thinking.
And in a sense, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the answers to this perfect knowledge, is always some form of social planning, or social organization.
Juan and BP are all for pluralism for different races and sexual preferences, but certainly not for religions. Certainly not for traditional cultural (tribal) forms.
sirmonty:I just do not see how anyone can calculate it with any degree of accuracy, but we can know a priori that it is a much more ethical and just society, regardless of our personal preferences for specific outcomes of equality/inequality.
Beautiful and profound.
Can someone [not Brainpolice, Liberty Student or Giles Stratton] please explain the views of both sides of this argument, because other than ad hominem, it seems that the sliver of contention is infintesimally small.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Well, socialism's shenanigans are quite silly, for sure.
I really don't care if an anarchist society leads to some "natural egalitarian order" or the opposite. I just know that I want a just and ethical system based on liberty. The way the dice specifically fall in terms of the outcome is immaterial to me.
EDIT: to LS
sirmonty:I really don't care if an anarchist society leads to some "natural egalitarian order" or the opposite. I just know that I want a just and ethical system based on liberty. The way the dice specifically fall in terms of the outcome is immaterial to me.
That is verbatim, my position as well.
And mine, I would say.
As long as all association is free, rather than forced, I don't care if there are unions, cooperatives etc. It's the freedom I'd fight for.
liberty student:Cooperation and voluntaryism doesn't mean the absence of leadership.
People can voluntarily choose to follow someone else, as you do when you work for a client or customer.
You consider it in your best interest, to follow their direction, to satisfy a goal they have set, in order to achieve your end, which is to get paid.
Sometimes your rabid anti-theism, and anti-conservatism lands you in trouble,
because you forget that anarchy doesn't fit one model only, and that your world without coercion is impossible to maintain indefinitely.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Cooperation/voluntarism doesn't necessarily entail leadership either.
It also does not preclude it.
Juan:Again, when I work for a client I'm not 'following' him. Look, if you go to the bakery and buy bread, you're not ordering anyone around. The baker has freely chosen to provide you with bread in exchange for something else. You're not directing the baker on how to do his work and you've not persuaded him to be a baker. There's no 'leadership' in sight.
You're also not going to buy bread just because he baked it. You're going to buy the bread you want, at the price you want, at the quality you want. If he makes lousy bread in a manned you do not like, he's not going to sell any. Eventually, he will go broke.
A successful entrepreneur satisfies his customers, and thus he does take his direction from knowing and meeting his customers needs.
Now he voluntarily chooses to do so, but that doesn't change the way the relationship unfolds.
Juan:The thing is, revealed religions are just fantasy.
I agree. But I don't persecute people for their beliefs.
Juan:And conservatism belongs to the past. Sooner or later both will be wiped out.
If you truly believed that, you would not obsess over it.
Juan:If you think that's impossible to maintain, why do you bother with libertarianism ?
Because it is the nature of some men, to challenge the impossible.
I agree, in your utopian society, no one believes in religion, no one is a conservative and there is no violence. Also the moon is made of swiss cheese, and there is a pot of gold at the end of each rainbow.
And what race, gender or religion would be disadvantaged in a free society? which race do you think that will perish due to its inherent inferiority and inability to provide for themselves? would it be blacks, latinos or indians?
Latino is not, strictly speaking, a racial classification. I think it pertains to mixed race individuals of a particular sociocultural background. Basically just another government classification for its purposes.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student:You're going to buy the bread you want, at the price you want, at the quality you want. If he makes lousy bread in a manned you do not like, he's not going to sell any. Eventually, he will go broke.
LS: J: The thing is, revealed religions are just fantasy. I agree. But I don't persecute people for their beliefs.
J: The thing is, revealed religions are just fantasy.
LS: J: And conservatism belongs to the past. Sooner or later both will be wiped out. If you truly believed that, you would not obsess over it.
J: And conservatism belongs to the past. Sooner or later both will be wiped out.
I agree, in your utopian society, no one believes in religion, no one is a conservative and there is no violence.
liberty student: Brainpolice:and if you really knew about it, you'd know that I have consistantly debated against the Chomsky/Zinn crowd there and dismissed them as state-socialists. Yeah, I was particularly moved by your argument that instead of attacking capitalism and the state withering away, one could attack the state and wither capitalism away. Anti-capitalist. You just try to be coy about it.
It's convenient for you to generalize without addressing my specific arguments, isn't it?
Stop trolling and misrepresenting.
sirmonty: Well, socialism's shenanigans are quite silly, for sure. I really don't care if an anarchist society leads to some "natural egalitarian order" or the opposite. I just know that I want a just and ethical system based on liberty. The way the dice specifically fall in terms of the outcome is immaterial to me. EDIT: to LS
I think this sentiment is a bit naive and misleading. Noone doesn't care about the consequences of liberty. To have a goal and yet not care about the consequences of that goal relative to other goals makes no sense. I want a just and ethical framework based on liberty as well, and the entire point is that there are certain things that are either inherently incompatible with that or not healthy traits to foster and sustain it. A society full of dogmatists and bigots simply is not a healthy framework for a free society, and won't remain one for long. Likewise, a society based on a feudalist model simply isn't a free society to begin with due to what a fuedalist model actually means when compared to a libertarian social theory. I also don't think it makes sense to act as if libertarianism only implies anti-statism when anything that contradicts the social theory comes into question. This includes "private" violations of personal sovereignty. Simply slapping the label "private" next to something or making something "private" doesn't automatically make it immune from libertarian criticism.
liberty student: CorporateGhost:And what race, gender or religion would be disadvantaged in a free society? which race do you think that will perish due to its inherent inferiority and inability to provide for themselves? would it be blacks, latinos or indians? Because it is politically correct not to discuss differences in religion, race or sexual preference, doesn't change the fact that they are not the same, they lead to different social orders, decision, and capabilities. Which is at a deficit in which situation isn't my point. It's that its left mythology (and ridiculous taboo) that they are to be considered non-factors and anyone discussing them is persona-non-grata in the liberty movement.
Different cultures will lead to different social orders,some better some worst. Sure, but believing that some human group would perish without the state is ridiculous.
Brainpolice:A society full of dogmatists and bigots simply is not a healthy framework for a free society, and won't remain one for long.
It seems to me that what is necessary is a good respect for property lines, once this begins to be blurred things become problematic. Conservatism, implies of all this, in the sense of exclusivity. As opposed to the mindset of the left, in which things become less exclusie.
Brainpolice: Likewise, a society based on a feudalist model simply isn't a free society to begin with due to what a fuedalist model actually means when compared to a libertarian social theory.
And you're equivocating, I don't mean feudalism in the sens that you are, and you know that. Nevertheless, I don't see how renting property out somehow defies some "laws of libertarianism".
Juan:Neither do I. There are people however who seem to believe that absent the state their church will overrun the whole world...
That's exactly what I believe... No, there will be non believers still, fewer though, don't worry though. You'll pay for sins sooner or later.
Juan:And conservatism belongs to the past
You mean, for example, when the state was for smaller?
Juan:Sooner or later both will be wiped out.
Of course, lifestyles based on low time preference will definately be wiped out. Perhaps, with the help of the state, yes.
I'm joking, hedonism is definately sustainable without a state to support it...
It seems to me that what is necessary is a good respect for property lines
Which property lines? "A good respect for property lines" is incredibly vague. The state currently claims property lines - should I have a "good respect" for them as a libertarian? I certainly don't recognize the claimed property lines of a thief, and from how I understand libertarian social theory, the property lines of a fuedal landlord is the property lines of an intergenerational theif, and the peasants are the ones with just ownership (I'm also merely echoing Rothbard's own stated position from TEOL here). So this just begs the question of the specific criteria for property rights. There is no rational reason to simply respect property lines without context. A respect for property lines without context is just authoritarian apologetics.
Conservatism, implies of all this, in the sense of exclusivity.
No it doesn't, that is just your own assertion of bias. Conservatism, as a political philosophy, does not imply a "respect for property lines" that is consistant with libertarianism as a political philosophy. Conservatism and libertarianism are two entirely different political philosophies.
As opposed to the mindset of the left, in which things become less exclusie.
So what? All you have done is assert your preferance for more exclusivity. But the moment you imply that this is the "natural order" implied by libertarianism, you're simply twisting libertarianism to suite your preferances.
Nevertheless, I don't see how renting property out somehow defies some "laws of libertarianism".
I'm not normatively objecting to the renting of property as such. I'm normatively objecting to the inherently coercive institutionalization of this into a system of feudalism, in which a handful of landlords have arbitrary intergenerational legal privilege to a property title that is illegitimate by libertarian social theory.
Brainpolice:Which property lines? "A good respect for property lines" is incredibly vague. The state currently claims property lines - should I have a "good respect" for them as a libertarian? I certainly don't recognize the claimed property lines of a thief. So this just begs the question of the specific criteria for property rights. There is no rational reason to simply respect property lines without context.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, what I meant was that conservatism (in the context of statelessness) implies far greater exclusivity than any other cultural "preference". As such, property lines (once again, in the context of a society without a state), would be more clearly defined and respected. As opposed to the mindset of the "left" of which the mentality "what's mine is yours" is far more indicative.
Brainpolice:No it doesn't, that is just your own assertion of bias. Conservatism, as a political philosophy, does not imply a "respect for property lines" that is consistant with libertarianism as a political philosophy. Conservatism and libertarianism are two entirely different political philosophies.
I think it's quite clear what I mean.
Brainpolice:So what? All you have done is assert your preferance for more exclusivity. But the moment you imply that this is the "natural order" implied by libertarianism, you're simply twisting libertarianism to suite your preferances.
No, I''ve done nothing of the sort, rather, I've claimed that exclusivity implies more clearly defined property rights, perhaps not in the formal sense, but as a general understanding between members of the community. As can be witnessed in regards to the left libertarian advocacy of "common property".
Brainpolice:I'm not normatively objecting to the renting of property as such. I'm normatively objecting to the inherently coercive institutionalization of this into a system of feudalism, in which a handful of landlords have arbitrary intergenerational legal privilege to a property title that is illegitimate by libertarian social theory.
Likewise.
CorporateGhost:Different cultures will lead to different social orders,some better some worst. Sure, but believing that some human group would perish without the state is ridiculous.
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
Except there is nothing about a non-conservative perspective that implies a lack of respect for property lines. It's just different property lines. Nothing about anything I've stated and nothing about left-libertarianism aschews property lines, it's just a different view on what kind of property arrangements follow from or are compatible with libertarian social theory.
Brainpolice:Except there is nothing about a non-conservative perspective that implies a lack of respect for property lines. It's just different property lines. Nothing about anything I've stated and nothing about left-libertarianism aschews property lines, it's just a different view on what kind of property arrangements follow from or are compatible with libertarian social theory.
Yes, and I've not said that there is anything about left libertarianism that doesn't respect property lines. Only, the left libertarian mindset is left inclined to considered them to be so exclusive, and hence, more blurred.
Indeed, it's important to remember that the left is never wrong. They just have different ideas. A key component of leftism is a denial of the basic nature of man, and the physical realities of existence. One could say they are dreamers, except their ideology in action, usually ends up being a nightmare.
liberty student: Indeed, it's important to remember that the left is never wrong. They just have different ideas. A key component of leftism is a denial of the basic nature of man, and the physical realities of existence. One could say they are dreamers, except their ideology in action, usually ends up being a nightmare.
Once again, you're simply making blanket statements without regaurd for the actual content of anyone's ideas. Simply assuming that someone "is in denial of the basic nature of man and the physical realities of existance" because the label "left" is applied to them is illogical. You sound a lot like an Objectivist with such sweeping statements. "Leftism" in this way is just a strawman that you've invented to justify your prejudices.
Nothing about a general desire to see the conditions of people improve inherently means that someone is "in denial of the basic nature of man and the physical realities of existance". This is a weak argument to justify a traditionalist bias. That's the problem with you blanket attacks on "the left" - even the slightest desire to improve conditions is brushed off as utopian. I have to wonder why someone with such an ideology would go for libertarianism to begin with, which inherently implies a massive change from the current social order. Hence, one could just as easily make the same disingenous argument against libertarians and it would be no worse than your own argument here. "Oh, you libertarians are just rebelling against the nature of reality itself! Don't you know that the state is the natural order?".
Brainpolice:It already has been refuted in the very post you repeat it in response to. You haven't responded to my argument, just reasserted your premise.
One gets the impression that you're quite the fountain of knowledge, apparently anytime you argue against something it counts as a refutation.
Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society.
Next time you "respond" to me, ask yourself "Did GS actually say that?", in this case, no I didn't.
Brainpolice:The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society,
Only, society isn't "flat", without the state. And if you believe it to be so, prove it. Without the state, society would be based on private property. Which is highly inegalitarian, since if I own something, you don't. We're not equal. Moreover, on my property, I make the rules.
Brainpolice:and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness,
Yes, so what? Nobody has denied/ agree with what you're saying.
Brainpolice:But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
No, not less hierarchy. Of a different kind. Instead of those who are most adept at using violence to attain their means rising to the "top", those who acquire the most respect from the community, or society, do. These individuals are known as natural elites, and they are likely to run down family lines due to being highly selective in their relationships.
The fact is people like inequality and hiearchy. That's why almost all institutions are hierarchichal, even unions.
Brainpolice: I disagree because we CAN make some general statements about how the state warps the economy.
When you think it suits you.