Forums of the Libertarian Left

hayenmill wrote:

Brainpolice wrote:*palmface @ confederalsocialist reference*

From my perspective, the problem is that absolutist propertarianism, in fact, reduces to a justification for a state (a claim of absolute authority derived from land ownership) and "restrictive covenants" are rigid intergenerational social contracts - regaurdless of whether or not you think property definitions are "objective".

I think stodles has done a lot of damage.

Well seems like you and I are talking of different people. By his definition of property, absolutist propertarianism is impossible. For him, you can only own something if the other people around you let you own it. This is why I believe that several different property societies would appear based on the surrounding communities' preferences. You would have communities where all property were collectivized, communities were the only legitimate property would be the one derived from possession, others similar to today except without a state but with protection services, etc. A state would be the entity (person or group of persons) that would claim ownership from different means than the surrounding community intersubjective criteria. Example:

If in a certain community the intersubjective criteria/consensus for property is homesteading, then a state would be a person or group of people who claim ownership of property by simply stating it so out loud, or by any other action that was not homesteading.

The usefulness of this definition, is that it draws a line of distinction between someone defending their property (not a state), and someone forcefully taking another persons legitimate property (statist behavior).

Edit: I'd like to add i'm perfectly aware of confederalsocialist's (aka stodles) previous racist comments, although I don't think such reference qualifies as a valid counter-argument (it is ad hom, after all)

hayenmill wrote:The only way to deal with natural non-libertarian institutions (such as racist communities for example), would be to use statist force (which goes against the non-aggression principle,, because racist communities are imposing restrictions on their property like we all do, no matter how irrational) or to believe that natural "market" incentives and activities would make such communities disappear or make such ideology inherent to the given community fade away.

Unless you got another suggestion ^^?

Charles Johnson wrote:In a freed market, if someone in the market exploits workers or chisels costumers, if she produces things that are degrading or dangerous or uses methods that are environmentally destructive, it’s vital to remember that you do not have to just "let the market take its course" — because the market is not something outside of us; we are market forces. And so a freed market includes not only individual buyers and sellers, looking to increase a bottom line, but also our shared projects, when people choose to work together, by means of conscious but non-coercive activism, alongside, indeed as a part of, the undesigned forms of spontaneous self-organization that emerge. We are "market forces," and the regulating in a self-regulating market is done not only by us equilibrating our prices and bids, but also by deliberately working to shift the equilibrium point, by means of conscious entrepreneurial action — and one thing that libertarian principles clearly imply, even though actually-existing libertarians may not stress it often enough, is that entrepreneurship includes social entrepreneurship, working to achieve non-monetary social goals.

So when self-regulating workers rely on themselves and not on the state, abusive or exploitative or irresponsible bosses can be checked or plain run out of the market, by the threat or the practice of strikes, of boycotts, of divestiture, and of competition — competition from humane and sustainable alternatives, promoted by means of Fair Trade certifications, social investing, or other positive "pro-cott" measures. As long as the means are voluntary, based on free association and dissociation, the right to organize, the right to quit, and the right to put your money where your mouth is, these are all part of a freed market, no less than apple-carts or corporations. When liberals or "Progressives" wonder who will check the power of the capitalists and the bureaucratic corporations, their answer is — a politically-appointed, even less accountable bureaucracy. The libertarian answer is — the power of the people, organized with our fellow workers into fighting unions, strikes and slow-downs, organized boycotts, and working to develop alternative institutions like union hiring halls, grassroots mutual aid associations, free clinics, or worker and consumer co-ops. In other words, if you want regulations that check destructive corporate power, that put a stop to abuse or exploitation or the trashing of the environment, don’t lobby—organize!

Brainpolice wrote:
I think that this is missing the point, which is that in a quite literal consequentialist sense, certain "intersubjective consensuses" about property inherently lead to or justify states. In particular, any sort of absolute large-scale land claim in which the land is owned in perpetuity by a given institution and that institution claims absolute authority over whoever happens to live on that land (even if it is based on an "intersubjective consensus"). In this way, the talk of community standards is beside the point here. The point is that there is no qualatative difference between a state and a large-scale landowner that claims absolute authority based on territorialism. That's precisely what states as we know them already are.

By his own open-ended terms about property, absolutist propertarianism can be an "intersubjective consensus", and absolutist propertarianism is in fact the particular "intersubjective consensus" that he pushes. The distinction you're trying to make between "defending your property" and "taking someone's property by force" breaks down in that the very absolutist property claim that one is said to be "defending" already constitutes a claim over the lives of whoever happens to live within the claimed territory. By "absolutist propertarianism" I mean (1) any claim of absolute authority derived from an appeal to land ownership (whether it's an "intersubjective consensus" between the owners is irrelevant from the standpoint of the occupants of the territory who aren't the owners) and (2) total perpetuity or absenteeism in land property, I.E. claims over unused or abandoned land.

dunno wrote:Although this won't be a very decent answer, it depends on local custom. If the members of a particular community operate with a system of property based on Locke's labour theory and homesteading, then there are not going to be disputes. The only disputes are going to be with those from outside the community who aren't normally used to that. They have a number of options; risk pissing off the locals by ignoring their practices and 'invading' the land, adopt the system of property the locals use or come to some kind of arrangement. Say a group of libertarian communists form a farming commune in this community.
The rest of the community are already going to respect the land the commune is occupying as property because it fits their conception of property, even though the commune itself doesn't see things the same way. I think it's more likely they would be willing to come to some kind of arrangement, as the members of the commune are still, in all likelihood, going to need some goods and services which they cannot provide for themselves. In this way things are mutually beneficial; the commune provides for their members equally, and does so sans the exploitation they see in other systems and the rest of the community can continue doing their thing.

You then have two competing systems of property operating in the same place, on peaceful terms, that are in competition so far as they are able to efficiently provide for the needs of their respective users. If the situation changes, one may prove to be stronger than the other or vice versa meaning it wins out.

How can an agorist, who claims to own a piece of land defend it against a georgist? or an ancom? or an ansoc?



I would suggest it comes down to mutuality and reciprocity. In order to have your own rights and demands respected in rem, you need to show that you are willing to respect those of others. However, disputes will arise and people will develop methods of resolving those disputes among themselves. How they will do so, well, is unforeseeable really. We can just provide possible examples.

Bored Zhwazi wrote:This is the new word I coined for people who believe the government is morally justifiable.

Archo - from greek "archon", meaning ruler, often meaning government.
exceptional - excluding, excepting, not counting
ism - idea or belief.

In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government.

Which as I've said before, what's government but a group of people?

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
Government is a group of people. It is wrong for government to do X.

This means, no war, no law, no taxes. This is not compatible with government. So statists must be archoexceptionalists in order to rationalize it.

"No you cannot rob Peter, that's wrong. But Peter isn't paying his taxes, now Paul won't be getting a Social Security check."

"No you cannot force Peter to let you look around his house. But the police can get a search warrant and that's okay."

"No you cannot kill Peter, that's murder. But if he resists the IRS agents we're sending to his house we'll kill him."

"No you cannot print money, that would be bad. The Federal Reserve has to print all the money."

"Nobody but the government can build roads."

"Nobody but the government can school the children."

"Nobody but the government can stop the terrorists."

"Nobody but the government can offer police protection."

You can see the clear archoexceptionalism present in these statements.

Another great example is the definition of violence in the public mind.

When a man shoots a cop, even in self-defense, that's considered crime.
When a cop shoots a man, defensively or not, that's considered justice.

How does he do it? Archoexceptionalism. He's not just a man with a badge and a uniform, he's the government. He's excepted from the normal rules.

I'll reiterate, the government is a group of people. Anything one group of people can do, any group of people can do. There is nothing inherent in any one group of people that makes them superior to all others by the very title which they give themselves.

Statism requires archoexceptionalism.

Archoexceptionalism is irrational.

Statism is irrational.

neverfox wrote:Why is statist force the only way? That's an odd conclusion. Libertarianism calls for meeting force with force & non-force other methods (e.g. the pen, the loud mouth and the $ to name a few).

Charles Johnson wrote:In a freed market, if someone in the market exploits workers or chisels costumers, if she produces things that are degrading or dangerous or uses methods that are environmentally destructive, it’s vital to remember that you do not have to just "let the market take its course" — because the market is not something outside of us; we are market forces. And so a freed market includes not only individual buyers and sellers, looking to increase a bottom line, but also our shared projects, when people choose to work together, by means of conscious but non-coercive activism, alongside, indeed as a part of, the undesigned forms of spontaneous self-organization that emerge. We are "market forces," and the regulating in a self-regulating market is done not only by us equilibrating our prices and bids, but also by deliberately working to shift the equilibrium point, by means of conscious entrepreneurial action — and one thing that libertarian principles clearly imply, even though actually-existing libertarians may not stress it often enough, is that entrepreneurship includes social entrepreneurship, working to achieve non-monetary social goals.

So when self-regulating workers rely on themselves and not on the state, abusive or exploitative or irresponsible bosses can be checked or plain run out of the market, by the threat or the practice of strikes, of boycotts, of divestiture, and of competition — competition from humane and sustainable alternatives, promoted by means of Fair Trade certifications, social investing, or other positive "pro-cott" measures. As long as the means are voluntary, based on free association and dissociation, the right to organize, the right to quit, and the right to put your money where your mouth is, these are all part of a freed market, no less than apple-carts or corporations. When liberals or "Progressives" wonder who will check the power of the capitalists and the bureaucratic corporations, their answer is — a politically-appointed, even less accountable bureaucracy. The libertarian answer is — the power of the people, organized with our fellow workers into fighting unions, strikes and slow-downs, organized boycotts, and working to develop alternative institutions like union hiring halls, grassroots mutual aid associations, free clinics, or worker and consumer co-ops. In other words, if you want regulations that check destructive corporate power, that put a stop to abuse or exploitation or the trashing of the environment, don’t lobby—organize!

The same can be said of racism as can be said of labor issues.

hayenmill wrote:This is very interesting. Of course, non-coercive voluntary solutions are always preferable. Those are the ones I would only endorse. But I thought we were discussing your proposed restrictions to communities. If you were actually not advocating any use of physical force, then I don't see any quarrel here. But if you were, then your justification to turn an "un-libertarian" community into a libertarian community would be only through un-libertarian means. Besides, i thought the term libertarian included people's freedom to organize themselves voluntarily, whether or not such association was based on idiotic and stupid ideas like racism for example.

Anyway, until I understand if you're advocating force or not, which seems to be the only subject we were discussing, then I don't think we have any other opposing ideologies to discuss ^^

Btw, I particularly enjoyed the "don't lobby - organize!" slogan. May I have your intellectual property permission to use it?

neverfox wrote:Huh? Where is this coming from? When did I propose restrictions to communities or the use of aggression? I was arguing, contra you, that force is the only way to deal with non-rights violating forms of oppression. I'm not sure why that was unclear. Organizing doesn't make your ideology automatically worth endorsing or any more philosophically sound or coherent. Also, as this video makes clear, various thickness considerations would lead one to believe that they are well worth opposing (though non-force means) before force becomes a more valuable means for them than the NAP. Racism contains its own seed of anti-libertarianism even if libertarianism is useful for them in the present, to reach first goals, because it lacks a shared ground of basic respect for persons. The goal of the thick libertarian is respect for persons first; the goal of the racist is separatism. The NAP is useful to both but only central to the former. Anyone who considers non-aggression an end has good reason to be vocally/economically opposed to any ideology that views it merely as a means for now. But by definition they are constrained from using non-defensive force to accomplish this.

hayenmill wrote:The only way to deal with natural non-libertarian institutions (such as racist communities for example), would be to use statist force (which goes against the non-aggression principle,, because racist communities are imposing restrictions on their property like we all do, no matter how irrational) or to believe that natural "market" incentives and activities would make such communities disappear or make such ideology inherent to the given community fade away.

neverfox wrote:Well 1) that's not my quote and 2) there is no such thing as IP.