Well, after making us out to be terrible rapists (http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/rape-isn-t-a-violation-of-nap-or-self-ownership-t1187.html)
we can examine how the FLL collective plans to support the elderly:
http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/supporting-the-elderly-t1210.html
Well, obviously in Rothbardian contract theory, one can opt out of such a contract. You can never have any property in humans, or force them to labour, or force them to do anything, even if a contract says so. (Opting out of such a contract, however, may result in the transfer of a property title if such was agreed to as restitution).
But, still, FLL is the anti-intellectual, anti-debate version of my statement. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
Oh Wheylous, you can do a better job than citing a thread that was clearly two trolls and new members (you’ll notice their recent intro threads).
There is no “left” or “right” Libertarianism, by the way. There is only pure Rothbardian Libertarianism, which everyone must follow. Libertarianism is a fact.
While I agree that the left/right dichotomy is pretty inept at explaining libertarianism, it’s not at all for the same reason. It has a lot more to do with “libertarian” meaning what you would call a “damn commie” in the rest of the world.
Hmm…Libertarianism, as defined by Rothbard, is capitalist by nature. What do you mean?
If a “commune” is voluntary, then it is not a commune at all; it is merely part of the Free Market. A commune is where the State coercively distributes the property of various individuals. “Anarcho”-Communism, as Rothbard said, would devolve into a State due to various “officiating boards.”
You know if the commune runs everything, and decides for everything, whether it is a neighborhood commune or a mass country commune – it really does not matter in this case, somebody’s got to make the communal decision. You can’t tell me that you’ll have participatory democracy and that everybody is going to equally participate. There is obviously going to be a small group, the officiating board or the statistical administrative board or whatever they want to call it, whatever it’s going to be, it’s going to be the same damn group making decisions for everybody. In other words, it’s going to be a coercive decision for the collective property. It will be another state again, as far as I can see. So I really can’t see any basis for collaboration.
So, no, communism cannot be allowed to exist, as it is by definition involuntary. If it is not, then it is not communism, but rather Free Market.
There is no “left” or “right” Libertarianism, by the way. There is only pure Rothbardian Libertarianism, which everyone must follow. Libertarianism is a fact.
U srs?
If a “commune” is voluntary, then it is not a commune at all; it is merely part of the Free Market. A commune is where the State coercively distributes the property of various individuals. “Anarcho”-Communism, as Rothbard said, would devolve into a State due to various “officiating boards.”
There are voluntary communes, they are the ones people volunteer to be a part of. If people want to form a commune (I guess it’s a battle of semantics on how you want to define commune) people can be a part of it and come and go as they wish, but obviously that commune is going to have it’s own rules and customs that it’s members support and follow. (And don’t say they don’t exist, I know of people who have joined communes and it was on a voluntary basis.)
U srs?
Yes. I genuinely believe Libertarianism is Universal and Absolute Truth. Say what you want…
I guess it’s a battle of semantics on how you want to define commune
Like I said, to me a commune=State (though a specific kind). Communism=socialism, and these terms can only be meaningfully defined as when the State distributes property. The Rothbard quote I provided shows how the “board of directors” would turn into a State. (When it did, I would immediately be against it).
Otherwise it is Free Market, and I have no problem with it.
Yes. I genuinely believe Libertarianim is Universal and Absolute Truth. Say what you want…
Belief and truth are different things. I don’t think “Rothbardian libertarianism” is an absolute truth.
Like I said, to me a commune=State (though a specific kind). Communism=socialism, and these terms can only be meaningfully defined as when the State distributes property. The Rothbard quote I provided shows how the “board of directors” would turn into a State. (When it did, I would immediately be against it).
And what’s a State? What’s a commune? How much detail can you get into to define a voluntary commune from private insurance and security providers of given districts?
Belief and truth are different things. I don’t think “Rothbardian libertarianism” is an absolute truth.
Well, “believe” was not the most accurate word in that sentence. Suffice it to say that I would replace the word with “know.”
And what’s a State?
“Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.”
What’s a commune?
A State that tries to equally distribute all wealth in the society via coercion.
What happens in a voluntary commune if you don’t want to share what you’ve brought in or produced? What happens if you trade goods with another member of the commune? What happens if you trade goods with somebody outside the commune?
“Voluntary” commune is an oxymoron. Just like “voluntary” government.
A State that tries to equally distribute all wealth in the society via coercion.
Essentially the definition you give is no different than the State, you’re just naming a variety of one of the things the State can do, which doesn’t define a commune (in which could be another battle of semantics of a commune and communism on a whole).
What happens in a voluntary commune if you don’t want to share what you’ve brought in or produced? What happens if you trade goods with another member of the commune? What happens if you trade goods with somebody outside the commune?
I don’t know. Go to a couple of communes and ask them. One of the people I know that joined a commune joined one that had, obviously, rules and customs that would have to be respected. It’s agreed upon when you join to follow the way of those people involved, and you wouldn’t join something that you didn’t want to be a part of. To be honest, I don’t know the specifics of that commune or any commune in this country, it can be too intricate and complex. It’s like asking how certain problems would be handled on the market, you can get a variety of answers. All I know is that it’s voluntary, and if you cause problems for that commune you’ll be asked to leave.
Why does it not define a commune? I am saying that it is a type of State (by my definition). I therefore choose to reject “communes” as part of the Free Market.
Anyway, my main point here is either that it will be a Free Market activity or a Criminal one. There is no middle ground. Libertarianism, as I said, is the Universal Law.
Why does it not define a commune? I am saying that it is a type of State (by my definition). I therefore choose to reject “communes” as part of the Free Market.
Why would it define a commune? You are also saying this is your definition of a commune. Could a commune exist within a free market? Yes.
Anyway, my main point here is either that it will be a Free Market activity or a Criminal one. There is no middle ground. Libertarianism, as I said, is the Universal Law.
I don’t see it as universal law, seems a bit naive.
Could a commune exist within a free market?
Like I said, not by my new definition. (Which does not even let communism get off the ground).
I don’t see it as universal law, seems a bit naive.
Well, I am a Libertarian radical. If you want to call that naïve, go ahead.
Like I said, not by my new definition. (Which does not even let communism get off the ground).
Why wouldn’t it? Clearly we have communes in a capitalist country, so they exist. They are on a voluntary basis (as membership goes). I’m sure there is a contract agreement when you are a member, and the communes don’t violate the NAP of non-commune members.
Well, you cannot join a “voluntary” State, and my definition of communism is as a type of State. Also, if it was actually a commune by my definition (i.e., coercively distributing property), then it would have to be dismantled. No one can ever initiate aggression. (That’s what a commune does by definition).
Well, you cannot join a “voluntary” State, and my definition of communism is as a type of State. Also, if it was actually a commune by my definition (i.e., coercively distributing property), then it would have to be dismantled. No one can ever initiate aggression. (That’s what a commune does by definition).
And this is why your definition is wrong and defies reality. There are communes that exist in this country that people voluntarily join and can voluntarily leave. If they are not communes what are they? What about this?
Simply, they are part of Free Market interactions. They can call it a commune, but it is not the way I see it, not what an actual commune is. Someone may call a private enforcement agency a State, but that does not mean it is one.