Left-wing libertarianism

[filc]

@filc

prefer to be a laborer as opposed to a capitalist

@Benjamin

That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in weeks.

Whats so funny about it? I fail to see the humor. People’s actions are dependent on their time preference, if someone has a long time preference and is patient they may be willing to sacrifice a great deal to accumulate enough savings into ultimately becoming a capitalist. Another person on the other hand may have a short time preference and is unwilling to save up enough money for investment, he would pefer to spend now rather than later. I don’t think you understood what I told you, allow me to requote myself. Let me know where you get hung up.

@filc

Property itself is a right, which is nothing more then a claim to human action and a claim to any associated tangible object. The technicalities of how property is handled on the market between two parties, assuming no coercion, is not really open to scrutiniy. If people come together voluntarily then the methods they choose to abide by is left up to them. You or I cannot judge someone else simply because they prefer to rent, or prefer to own, or prefer to be a laborer as opposed to a capitalist(and vise versa).

In other words, we cannot judge people simply because they have different preferences. The fact that you think that is funny speaks bounds to your character. Neither you nor myself is omniscient and capable of judging the actions and will of others.

@filc

Titles do not create property rights. Property rights create titles.

@Benjamin

No, actually property titles are created by human beings and human institutions. One group of humans think they have a right to something and write it down on paper. That doesn’t prove it follows from a right.

I think your confusing yourself. Titles are created by human beings as a market mechanism for sorting property, but property does not come from a piece of paper as you argue, and as the legal positivists argue. Laws don’t make rights.

Property is a complex consequential axiom. It is a result to these 3 known factors

• Objects are Scarce
• Time is Scarce
• the occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy individual desire

Do you take issue with any one of these 3 things? If not then you concede that property is simply a necessary product for dealing with those 3 factors. We must have some method of communicating in identifying who currently has a legitimate claim over a certain object, and for what duration of time.

@Benjamin

Christopher Colombus might land somewhere, claim it for Spain and Spain might well print up a title to ‘their new land.’ That doesn’t mean they have a right to that land. Titles are created by laws. Laws are created by dominant players within a society.

Again pieces of paper don’t make rights. I have a printer, but I couldn’t just print up a random title and claim ownership over my neighbor’s house and car.

@Benjamin

In a libertarian society, you will have different groups which have different conceptions of property. The only two options are to have different societies with different property rules, or for the dominant group to surpress the groups with alternative conceptions with violence. Which are you proposing?

You cannot make a claim that violence is involved without first defining property. The term violence and aggression changes based on one’s concept of property. We cannot know if we are violating anyone’s rights without a clear definition of property.

@Benjamin

The only reason a ‘capitalist’ can enforce his claim to “own,” let’s say, a factory, is because any opposing claims to ownership are violently supressed by state coercion.

@Benjamin

The only two options are to have different societies with different property rules, or for the dominant group to surpress the groups with alternative conceptions with violence. Which are you proposing?

This is a fallacy. There are not only two options, there are many.

First off it appears that you have done very little research regarding Anarcho Capitalism before posting here. Especially considering the above quote where you state that capitalists rely on coercion to maintain themselves. Capitalism is not fascism first off, so please do not conflate the two. While it’s true that many capitalist countries have become fascist in time, I assure you the two concepts are very different.

There is no need to have a state to protect property rights, had you done any research prior to this you would have known of things like PDA’s insurance agency’s and third party arbiters. In other words the market can handle such things. If there is a dispute the representing company of each party will deal with the legal work. If someone chooses not to comply they will pay consequences. Those consequences might simply be the inability to do further business in a geographic region. This is not violence, but pacifism and I trust you understand that pacifism and violence are nothing alike correct? In many cases you may likely see pacificism as a likely peaceful tool for dealing with violators of rights. A way of excommunicating the bad apples.

In other cases an arbiter may find a clear violator of rights and the defendant, and his PDA, may do whats necessary to defend his property or rights. There are many ways this can get handled but in none of those cases is a state necessary. The state simply holds a monopoly on security, security can easily and more peacefully be handled on the market. Coercively provided security is, as are all coercively based monopolies, overpriced and under-performs. If you’ve ever had to deal in the legal industry in this country you already know that. Like all coercively provided services they suffer from serious performance issues. They do not have the same market mechanisms to help them improve their methods.

I have provided several articles for you to read in prior posts. Should I bother continuing to provide more? Do you have a genuine concern for understanding the Ancap position? Or are you just here to express your emotions on the “injustices of life” and argue until your blue in the face? I can provide books of literature for you if your interests are sincere.

---

You believe on the flip side that property should be voted for.

Lets forget property for a moment and do a little mind game.

Lets say you live in a town of 100 people. One evening you go outside to a bunch of noise and see a mob of 56 people out on your doorstep. They’re accusing you of being a witch and have voted to hang you. They do represent a majority in the town. Are they justified in killing you?

[Libertyandlife]

"Left"libertarians are always in shock when you mention the words anarchocapitalism. They always seem so offended and defensive of the word anarchy, as if egalitarianism is statelessness. Pisses me off.