Zanthorus wrote:Why would you assume that a classless society is only possible through enforcement.
Well, I don't. What I was implying was that aligning class distinctions along the spectrum of property instead of along the spectrum of rulership is only going to further rulership and defeat what I can only imagine is your sincere goal of liberty. In other words, I have a
libertarian class theory and not a Marxist one. I do not believe that property inherently creates class division.
If you abolish private property and let everyone have roughly what they can take then won't everyone end up with roughly the same amount as everyone else?
Actually, I think it would more than likely reflect physical power dynamics, leading to greater inequality if I had to guess. Why is "equality of property" desirable as oppose to say "the reward of labor is its product"?
There seems to be certain objective relationships people have to certain external objects that appropriating those objects counts as appropriating that person, which implies that justice allows for self-defense. Think of certain of these relationships as ongoing projects.
I don't think a concept like aggression can be fully coherent if it doesn't include some allowance for external objects as part of one's sphere of authority (in the way the body is often taken for granted). If I can take your food or shelter or other things necessary for survival whenever I want, starving you to death, then that seems an odd sort of freedom from aggression.
Looking at it from from consequences (which are important nonetheless), if you abolish private property you will increase conflict in a world with scarcity. David Schmidtz makes
a good case in that direction.
More often than not, inequalities aren't the result of market failure but of failure to respect property rights. In other words, it gets it backwards to blame property.
Charles Johnson wrote:Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling (2009-05-01): Markets, the poor & the left. Dillow makes two really important distinctions: one of them the familiar left-libertarian distinction between freed markets, on the one hand, and actually-existing corporate capitalism, on the other; the other a less familiar, but very important, distinction between market processes and patterns of ownership. Quote: "In many ways, what look like ways in which markets fail the poor are in fact merely ways in which a lack of assets fail the poor." Exactly; and the many cases where there are not really "market failures," but rather "ownership failures," have everything to do with feudal, mercantile, neoliberal, and other politically-driven seizures and reallocations of poor people’s land, livelihoods, and possessions — and nothing to do with genuine market exchange.
I've read that 5 times and I'm still hanging at 'TL;DR'. Can you explain it to me using less inflated language?
Shawn is well-known for writing with a certain flourish.
It has been a while since I last read it so I'll need to refresh my memory. I mentioned it only because of you reference to gift economy. In a few days, I think he is released some revised and expanded thoughts on that essay in LeftLiberty #2.
But then surely during any kind of exchange one person will value the good they have recieved higher than how the other person values what they have recieved making exchange impossible without exploitation?
I think you missed the "double" part;
both sides to a voluntary exchange, by definition, receive higher value because they each value what they receive more than what they give
or they would not have engaged in the exchange. The very act of exchange makes their value ordering apparent when explaining what just happened; that's what I mean when I say "by definition". To suppose that one item is more valuable than the other (e.g. to pick one party as getting the "raw deal") without reference to the subjective valuations of the two parties, is to treat economic value as objective and somehow outside the exchange (which is the perfect storm for arbitrary authority by some third party). You can only introduce exploitation by denying the preference satisfaction of free individuals.
One person (Lets call them person A) is bound to want what the other person (Person B) has more than person B wants what person A has
That is irrelevant as long as B wants what A has more than B wants what he
currently has. A's degree of desire is of no concern to B.
) The only thing I've really read is kropotkin. I read 'Man, economy and State' once but since Rothbard doesn't have a beard or come from the 19th century he automatically loses points 
