True enough [:)]
Well, the basic point I understand of this discussion is that not everyone is going to agree with you. So how do you resolve these conflicts? This is a common problem on this forum where people want freedom are under the impression that in a free society that there will be some universal agreement on things. There won’t be.
LS you and I disagree on abortion, on abandonment of children and parental obligations, on the enforceability of contracts, and neither of us are going to budge from those positions. So your expectation that everyone will agree in every case on what constitutes property or ownership is not workable.
You must accept there will be conflict and in some cases it will be violent.
I haven’t yet read either Carson’s stance on said property metasystems, nor Long’s objection (although, since I favor private property, I most likley would side with Long when I do get to reading the said documents…), but the issue of meta-systems is something that should definitley be paid attention too, in the off chance that not everyone will eventually side with private property anarchists (market anarchists, an-caps, etc.), which I don’t see hapenning anytime soon, honestly.
I think it would be interesting to apply the concept of meta-systems in simulated and/or virtual realities. It would be much easier to adapt the concept of property meta-systems online, since the concept of scarcity is skewed and/or malleable, vs. the offline reality of only a certain amount of land, resources, etc.
Personally, I stand by private property as it seems to be the most consistent at the moment, but in light of recent developments & stabs at furthering the knowledge base in libertarian & anarchistic theory (this paper is a stab at the issue of concepts of property being different yet somehow co-existing, the recent Wiebe paper on the topology of Anarchy, etc.), I think the debate will re-ignite into a direction towards consensus on some sort of concept that hasn’t been developed yet.
I think a better palce to start would be the few ideas & concepts that various views of property rights have in common, the obvious one being that there needs to be a stance on property rights period (as opposed to a stance of nihilism regarding property rights as a concept itself).
Hopefully, there is more than that to work with :\
No.
That is the discussion.
Unless you are referring to BP, that is a strawman.
No, No and No. But I don’t expect you to start paying attention now. Just more stubbornness and talking past everyone.
I will budge when I can grasp a better case. I wasn’t at this position on abortion when I got here. I budged. I wasn’t an anarchist, I budged.
Now please enlighten us, what personal growth or adaptation have you shown? Or do you already know everything?
Strawman.
I do accept that. Again, you fail to recognize the position of the people you are arguing with, and continue to talk past them.
I recommend getting up to speed on the discussion which now spans 3 threads including this one. I’m fairly certain you do not understand how we got to this point, and why.
This. ^^ Perfect! [Y]
Democracy is a cop out. A property rights position should be defensible, instead of this nonsense that indefensible systems can be made status quo by majority opinion.
That is a strawman with regaurd to me, and it’s unecessary to make referances to me out of nowhere.
No, it is not a strawman with regards to you. You indicated in the other thread, that groups would just stay small, and avoid confrontation. That’s a form of mutual agreement.
You’re welcome to sit this conversation out, if you don’t want to be referred to. Since you participated, I assumed you were included in Max’s blanket statements of opinion from this argument. And in reality, you are the only one who has made it known that you believe that non-violence over property rights issues will be addressed voluntarily by avoiding conflict.
Max’s quote that you tried to link to me is the idea that there will be a universal agreement on things. I have never stated or implied that anywhere on this forum, and hence it is a misrepresentation of my ideas. All I have implied is that conflict resolution between different groups with different preferances is necessary, and that a live and let live attitude is a healthy thing to have in a free society with a diverse group of people in it. All I have expressed is an anarchism without adjectives perspective, which is hardly a perspective that I alone have on this message board.
The idea that anarchism in and of itself is a means for conflict resolution (because anarchism is the only framework that actually gives people the option to go their separate ways or to live in the same society without forcing their preferances on eachother) is not something that should be controversial among anarchists, given one’s awareness of the degree to which the democratic state enables and thrives off of conflict among the populace and in this sense makes peaceful conflict resolution impossible, since every policy is “one size fits all”. So no, I do not propose that anarchism is based on everyone agreeing, my point is about finding ways of creating social cohesion in spite of differences of opinion and preferance among people.
No, I was referring to you. You frequently provide the impression that everyone has to come to some universal agreement for a free society to function. I was actually backing BP’s point in the previous thread where he discussed the basic notion that we are not all going to agree and that a free market could deal with this lack of agreement.
Yes, that is the discussion and your solution is that everyone has to be convinced to agree with you.
If I thought my position was correct, & were not convinced by any other counter cases that it wasn’t, I would probably think the solution is that people should agree with my position, or that converting people towards my position might be a solution.
I hope that wasn’t an attempt to paint LS as the close-minded ninny here, because you’re much better at it.
Back on topic, referring to my earlier comment, does anyone see any other similarities between the various stances onf property rights?
I think that a Rothbardian approach to property rights can delegitimize fuedalism and make a case in favor of the peasantry in 3rd world countries, and I don’t think any of the socialists or commies would put up a fight on that one. I also don’t think that any of the approaches to property rights in question entirely rejects all degrees or cases of private ownership over something, semantics and mutual misunderstandings not withstanding. Until the point that the self-proclaimed anti-propertarian gives up everything they own, including their clothing, I think it’s safe to assume that they implicitly support some degree of property rights and that their claim to oppose property is based on a very strange and nonsensical definition of what property is.
I largely agree in the sense that I’ve spoken with various socialists/communists/etc. who, while opposing private property, have no problem owning their own property in of itself, which I viewed as whimsical but never really brought up.
Source or strawman?
That doesn’t surprise me. The argument at hand is, how can you have an objective definition of rights, if you can’t have an objective definition of property?
Your comrade ran from that in the other thread, and this one. You both seem to endorse flexibility in facts. Which quite frankly, is bullshit. I don’t claim to have the answer, but I refuse to believe that the material physical and logical facts of existence are fluid and can accommodate polar opposites and still claim to be honest and righteous.
Perhaps you need to work on your basic comprehension skills. I don’t have the answer. I am saying that there cannot be two opposite conflicting objective truths. That is irrational.
Now if you can prove that up is down and down is up simultaneously, I will graciously admit my error. And I imagine you will try, because irrationality is a specialty of yours on this forum.
Absolutely, but this idea of Carson’s to vote out the details, as though a majority opinion can reconcile the differences between anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-capitalists is silly.
I read Long’s reply and it’s great until the last paragraph. I need to read it again with a clear mind. Of course, KC has a rejoinder to many criticisms I also still have not read but will endeavour to do so. At least Long seems to agree that not all theories are logically consistent.
Which was my point here. You can’t vote the irrational into legitimacy.
No disagreement here. I am as much against anarchists who outright deny property as you are. Non-vulgar social anarchists will realize that what market anarchists mean by property is different from the current statist conception; and the vulgar ones aren’t worth associating with.
Those types are basically just plain old commies.
I also forgot to mention that I think state claimed property is technically “squattable” (or “homesteadable”).
I actually find Carson to be spot on with regard to the idea that such a situation is quite likely should we eventually succeed in reaching a stateless society. The question of whether or not such a situation is desirable is different. Carson seems to think it is; I remain undecided at present. Then of course is the question of how to go about changing such a situation to bringabout a near-universal (in practice) agreement with regard to property rights. The most nonviolent means would likely yield a preferable outcome, methinks.
Then of course there is the question of property rights and whether or not Carson is right about the three basic types being equally questionable. I think Long wins on this point when debating within their mutual framework, but being something of a consequentialist, I don’t hold the same premises.
Do you not like the idea of collective homesteading, or the idea of acquiescing alternative property arrangements?
What about this ?
“If the factory were located in an area where usufruct dominates, and virtually all the locals expect and act in accordance with usufruct, and the capitalist, representing the ‘foreign’ culture, was trying to pull a property coup, then he would probably rule in favor of the syndicalist workers”