Political Theory

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:42:46 GMT

Whoever said the capitalist bought unowned land to put his factory on? I certainly didn't.

Well, that's what happened in many cases historically!

Ok, I know I am coming off bad at this point. But the thing is, I am on your side in certain cases. Where the original victim can be specifically traced, I would agree his property can be restituted which the govt. gave to a third party. However, the original victim has to prove his case in court, or otherwise responsibly justify any actions of vigilante confiscation he might take. So, yes, I entirely agree: where property is illegitimately owned, and where the victim can be specifically found, the victim can be restituted. So if the State steals money from X, and subsequently subsidizes business Y, X can get his money back from Y if he can specifically prove that it was stolen from him. Same as the victim in your gold scenario.

Rothbardians can get along with everyone. We are certainly not funamentalists, albeit we are disagreeable. Please see this article, which I think you would much agree with as a leftist:

http://murrayrothbard.com/confiscation-and-the-homestead-principle/

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:30:39 GMT

Yeah, except...Nobody owns unowned land! xD

Whoever said the capitalist bought unowned land to put his factory on? I certainly didn't.

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:25:08 GMT

Well I can see Im arguing with a fundamentalist, and undertaking a futile effort. I think I'm done here. I will respond to your response for the benefit of the lurkers.. you, my friend, are at the moment at least, a lost cause.

I'm a fundamentalist? I am just a Rothbardian. And I am willing to listen to someone else's communism. Even though I know in advance I will disagree. That is what being open-minded means to me.

Except, it's, you know, not.

Well, morality is objective because abstract theories are objective. This is according to the philosophical definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. Morality is universal because the NAA is true.

So guess what. When Terry steals your gold and sells it to me, you're not getting your gold back. I "bought it fairly. So what if the theif aggressively gave me claim to it. I still mixed the gold with my labor, making it mine."

Yeah, except...Nobody owns unowned land! xD

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:16:39 GMT

Well I can see Im arguing with a fundamentalist, and undertaking a futile effort. I think I'm done here. I will respond to your response for the benefit of the lurkers.. you, my friend, are at the moment at least, a lost cause...

Private property is absolute. I beg no question.

Ya, except for the one "is private property legitimate." Other than that question tho, no, you're not begging anything.

What's MI

Methodological Individualism.

Nope, morality is objective and universal, according to Rothbard's Non-Aggression Axiom.

Except, it's, you know, not.

Nope, there are only individuals. I am a literalist, and I only believe in things that literally exist mate.

So you don't believe in love or humor? lol

But all kidding aside. What literally exists is you, me, and a bunch of other individuals who take actions that have both direct and indirect efffects on each other.

Again... sad but true.

And? The owner got to mix his labour with the (still unowned!) land by buying a deed. So what if he bought unowned land which the State aggressively gave him claim to? He still first mixed the land with the labour making it his.

So guess what. When Terry steals your gold and sells it to me, you're not getting your gold back. I "bought it fairly. So what if the theif aggressively gave me claim to it. I still mixed the gold with my labor, making it mine."

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:58:51 GMT

Oh, does MI=Mises Institute? That would make sense.

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:37:03 GMT

You are begging the question of private properties legitimacy.

Private property is absolute. I beg no question.

Hey, why don't you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping.

What's MI? And I am not a communist; I have no interest in going into communist class, even though I am interested in learning about it from the outside. (You can see me from the window taking notes on why you are wrong).

Your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.

Nope, morality is objective and universal, according to Rothbard's Non-Aggression Axiom.

Ya, except you are... like it or not.

Nope, there are only individuals. I am a literalist, and I only believe in things that literally exist mate.

If I steal your gold, and sell it to a third party is the third party part of the aggression against you?

Your gold metaphor is not parallel.

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:09:54 GMT

Funny, I think something similar about communes.

At least we both realize the state is unnecessary, and usually reactionary.

I am going to make a stunning and amazing prediction!!!!

I predict that Rothbard's Disciple... IS NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LAOTZU DEL ZINN IS TRYING TO SAY!!!! :O :O :O

*epic thunderclap, crowd gasps in amazement*!!!

You called it

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:06:34 GMT

My aggression? I am simply a peaceful Free Market capitalist. Why, that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard!

You're only peaceful because, once again, you are begging the question of private properties legitimacy.

There is no literal, collective "society." Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot "do" or "allow" or "determine" anything: "it" cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 of Man, Economy, and State.

Hey, why don't you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.

1). I am not a part of this "all of us" BS.

Ya, except you are... like it or not.

2). The owner has aggressed upon no one.

If I steal your gold, and sell it to a third party is the third party part of the aggression against you? (In Ohio he is)

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 05:22:12 GMT

I predict that Rothbard's Disciple... IS NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LAOTZU DEL ZINN IS TRYING TO SAY!!!! :O :O :O

Oh, am I missing something really important? :O

He said he would aggress against my (emphasis) property.

And does your prediction apply vice versa? xD

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Neodoxy — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 04:58:13 GMT

I am going to make a stunning and amazing prediction!!!!

I predict that Rothbard's Disciple... IS NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LAOTZU DEL ZINN IS TRYING TO SAY!!!! :O :O :O

*epic thunderclap, crowd gasps in amazement*!!!

"Most of us socialist libertarians are fine allowing people to try capitalism in a non-state society. We just don't see it likely that the majority of people will choose to be slaves without the massive support Property gets from the state. If we sieze the workplace and you don't have the police to call in against us, how well do you think you will be able to hold on to it?"

Funny, I think something similar about communes.

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 04:04:25 GMT

And again, we are defending ourselves against your aggression.

My aggression? I am simply a peaceful Free Market capitalist. Why, that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard!

Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.

It's the lake I'm talking about, not the guitar.

Ah, John's a trespasser I presume, then. Yes, Freddie is still using more than proportional punishment. He should proceed to evict him with proportional force, and that would (of course!) be legitimate.

The owner aggressed against all of us when he bought the deed

1). I am not a part of this "all of us" BS.

2). The owner has aggressed upon no one.

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 03:58:16 GMT

That does not make any sense. Are you denying the Libertarian principle that every man has a right to his own? Anyway, that confirms my fears about you aggressing against my private property...

I am not, nor would I, deny that principle. It is the foundational reason for my anti-capitalism.

And again, we are defending ourselves against your aggression.

Also, I am confused by your example. Presumably John does not own the guitar in this scenario? Are you saying that it is Freddie's, and John has stolen it? Honestly, I am confused contextually by this.

1) Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.

2) It's the lake I'm talking about, not the guitar.

Also, you are not allowed to aggress upon the owner and "seize" the workplace.

The owner aggressed against all of us when he bought the deed

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 03:34:47 GMT

Action taken against "private" property is defense, not aggression.

That does not make any sense. Are you denying the Libertarian principle that every man has a right to his own? Anyway, that confirms my fears about you aggressing against my private property...

Also, I am confused by your example. Presumably John does not own the guitar in this scenario? Are you saying that it is Freddie's, and John has stolen it? Honestly, I am confused contextually by this.

I would say, from my Rothbardian view, if John owns the guitar, Freddie has obviously aggressed upon him. If John has stolen the guitar from Freddie, Freddie has still used more than proportional force against the original crime of Johnnie's. For he has threatened murder against petty theft. We Rothbardians are not maximalists mate. We believe in punishment in proportion to the crime; Freddie becomes a criminal by that much more which he has Aggressed than the original crime.

Also, you are not allowed to aggress upon the owner and "seize" the workplace.

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 03:20:54 GMT

I'm still a bit afraid of the leftist "libertarians" who would aggress against my private property and forcibly put me in communes, if they had their way. Is that reasonable?

1) Action taken against "private" property is defense, not aggression.

Imagine this scenerio: John comes up to a pond in a field, pulls out his guitar and enjoys the local ecology. Freddie runs out with a gun screaming "MINE" and threatens to shoot John. John calmly asks Freddie to calm down, he will be on his way soon enough. Freddie shoots John and calls the police. John goes to jail, Freddie walks free.

You have to make some pretty big logical jumps to call John the aggressor in that scenario; basically you have to beg the question and assume the legitimacy of property rights.

2) It wouldn't be very libertarian to force people into communes. Just as it is not (in our view) libertarian to force people into the property system (think Enclosure Act).

Most of us socialist libertarians are fine allowing people to try capitalism in a non-state society. We just don't see it likely that the majority of people will choose to be slaves without the massive support Property gets from the state. If we sieze the workplace and you don't have the police to call in against us, how well do you think you will be able to hold on to it?

Re: Wouldn't it be better to let the state fail on its own?

Wheylous — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 02:29:02 GMT

Nice analogy