Manorialism is a term that we are using here to describe something similar to a rent or a leasehold over a piece of land, which is property of the landlord. Rent and/or leasehold contracts does not give the tenant all rights to do what he wants with this property, because he does not own it. But in the case that the landlord sells a piece of land of the manor, he is selling all the rights regarding its use (contrary to Rothbard’s opinion). So, if the landlord sells a piece of land, he can not impose anything on the new propietor, in contrast with the leasehold contract.
I think we will see some degree of manorialism in an ancap society. The question is to what extent. And if I am understanding Giles correctly, (oversimplified version) he believes that most/all society will be manorial and most/all the owners will be cultural conservatives who forbid non cultural conservatives from being culturally non-conservative on their property (which will be all property)… this, I believe will not be the case.
Perhaps the most significant factor is that there are already so many democratic regions in the world and practically no culturally conservative regions, and so the incentive for conservatives to break away is much greater than for the democratic-libertarians to do so. Since conservatives also have more resources and are better organized this is likely to imply a proliferation of conservative free zones long before communal-libertarians see the need to break away from the state.
Democratic-libertarians ? Communal-libertarians ? More smear terms ?
What about economic libertarianism going hand in hand with cultural libertarianism and a collapse of baseless collectivism such as tribalism or baseless worldviews such as revealed religion ?
Such cultural libertarianism doesn’t sound at odds with the trends and philosophy of the Enlightenment…
We seem to have gone somewhat off topic again. Are there any takers to formally debate Giles on Manorialism?
Rothbard said something related to this issue:
Ok. If we don’t have a challenger fo Giles in the next 7 days, I will declare him victor by default and the non-manorialists to have demonstrated that their position is without foundation.
All I have to say to physiocrat is: buzz off. I have no requirement to enter into some scheduled pissing contest in which you’re the biased judge. Debate has already occured on these things endlessly on these forums and I’ve already elaborated on my position o’plenty. As for you declaring someone a “victor by default”, you don’t have any authority to do so and that’s a cheap and dishonest tactic. Refusing to participate in a debate that you want to be the sole judge of, which has already occured ad nausedum without you being the sole judge of it, is not “conceding”. I don’t play by your rules. You are not the final arbiter of truth value.
Then by all means Brainpolice I would not take issue with you deciding to choose a different abiter. I have no issues with Physiocrat and believe him to be apt for judging the formal debate, however if you wish to choose another individual to do the job and they are willing I will take no issue. Be it Juan, or perhaps preferably somebody such as Nitroaddict.
Well at least this time you’ve had the decency to respond for a call to debate unlike the many times previously when you have just ignored the suggestion. I don’t wish to be the sole the judge of any debate. i just find it curious that no-one will debate Giles in a formal and structured way so the arguments from both sides can be clearly seen and each individual can make up their own mind. As you well know most of these debates go way off topic and descend into mud slinging so a formal debate has clear advantages. Further it is not as if you don’t have the time to engage in such a debate as your numerous respones in the “Is the forum representative of the LvMI” testify. As to playing by my rules, of course you need not and don’t wish to force you to. However that will not stop me and others concluding from the fact you will not fromally debate Giles that your postion holds as much water as a sieve and the manorialists the winners. You can only harm the preception of your position by not engaging in my proposed debate.
Which is exactly why I favour this formal debate. So that once it is over both sides can be expected to put their opinions to the side and stop derailing any topic possible.
I proposed as much to Jeremy Davis, the lead LvMI organizer in Texas, not more than two days ago and he seems to feel that organizing a formal debate between the LL’s and LvMI’ers would give “legitimacy” to the left libertarians and would only serve to worsen our cause to those considering the Austrian method.
I don’t particularly agree with this view, however he does make a good political point.
It’s got nothing to do with Austrian econ, so strictly speaking he’s correct.
It would be a joke. I don’t think any prominent “right libertarians” would take part anyway.
I can see where Davis is coming from. I see a disturbing parallel between the so-called (I say so-called because I don’t believe either of these terms are very valid, but for the sake of reference…) “Left Libertarians” and the “Right Libertarians”, and that of the “Left Statists” and “Right Statists”, the “Communists” and “Anti-Communists” (this is an example of a dichotomy, not a comparison, to either LL’s or RL’s, so any accusations of strawmanning will be redundant & childish, imo), & whatever other dichotomy one wants to use as an example.
On one hand, I see a void developing between libertarianism in general, mirroring the 2-Side “majority” parties of The State.
On the other hand, I see a natural progression towards furthering certain views of libertarianism, & organizing accordingly, as both sides deviate in their own ways from whatever could be called “centered” libertarianism (from what I read of “plumb-line”, I don’t really agree on that as being “center”, either, though).
In many ways, I see LL’s loving the ability to oppose RL’s, even further if the RL’s were to ever to “officially” band together under the label itself, much as LL’s (largely) have.
I see the entire argument, for LL, against LL, for RL , against RL, etc. etc. etc as a collectivist battle over social authority of a movement, that ironically, seemed to be opposed to the same type of collectivist battle over majoritarian authority by the 2 Statist majority parties.
The only thing I’m sure about is that I do not like where this entire debate might be headed.
*Edit: fixed a massive typo early on, lol.
With any luck, it will drag the partisans over a cliff so the entrepreneurs can carry on building a libertarian society. It’s not going to happen with hot air, name calling, or sectarian divides. Even if you have a Masters degree, it’s very hard to justify what is essentially a high time preference activity with little to no lasting reward beyond feeding negative personality disorders.
Also, I vehemently oppose validating any other group with the resources or credibility of Mises.org, although I realize I do not have a say in that. I view these fringe ideologies, and most far left or radical socialist affiliations as being parodies of themselves, opposed to corporations, but hosting on blogspot (Google), anti-capital, and yet always parasiting off of someone else’s capital infrastructure.
Let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. The Ron Paul blimp was highly controversial, and able to raise more money in one day than the Center for a Kevin Carson Society might be able to raise in 2 years. The most skillful part of the Mises.org plan, is not ideology, quality or quantity although those things all matter a lot. It’s marketing. Mises.org understands that in order to market one’s self, you have to address the market, and be successful providing value to others, not seeking only to make trades which satisfy you, regardless or specifically in opposition to providing value elsewhere. It’s one thing to pay lip service to the market. It’s another thing to dominate it within your ideology.
I thought this debate would be a good idea. Now I see it’s become a distraction. It’s obvious that BP has no interest in a structured debate where he will be heavily scrutinized and his credibility challenged. He has countless hours to argue on YouTube or on blogs/forums where he can leave when the heat gets turned up.
And frankly, if I was him, I would probably adopt the same tactic.
At the same time, Giles needs to keep working on his PhD so he can have some credibility when arguing on forums, and really needs to focus on that and other areas of self-growth, not on short term battles with peasant ideologues and their brigades of follower baboons.
Some of what I wrote above is funny. Some is serious. All of it is tragic. Back to work.
PhD, what?
But yeah I need to cut down on the time I waste debating BP and Juan.
You know, according to a post I read, BP should not debate you because you are young and don’t have a Masters or PhD. Most of the young guys here are just loud, but they don’t know anything. [;)]
I call on Giles to - if it comes to Physio declaring him victor by default - to not accept victory on the subject of how widespread manoralism is likely to be. Seeing how this is always going to be more opinion than fact, as it can not really be proven to a satisfactory degree one way or the other.
If you cannot find anyone else willing, and/or if the two of you could not agree to anyone else, I would reluctantly accept, despite my own ambivalence.