So, you don’t realize that all industries are heavily regulated, taxed, subsidized and whatnot ? Is it not obvious that there’s a lot of wealth redistribution going on ?
The problem is that many libertarians start their analysis as if this is the case.
And yet this is implicit in their defense of both the state and various so-called “private” entities.
That’s not precisely the contention and I’m getting tired of having to reiterate the point over and over again.
The alternative is to accept and defend the status quo.
Either subsidies and regulations are just or not. If they are not they should be discontinued now.
I’m not for subsidies or regulations.
My question was how do we reverse any problem of illegitimate ownership (or property titles) or understand where it should be instead? I genuinely would likely to know.
Rothbard outlines the answer to that question quite well in “The Ethics of Liberty”.
It’s called Revolutionary Redistribution.
Here’s a rough draft of an ALL pamphlet I’m working on. There are two sides, the first is linked to “rough” and the second to “draft.”
But your position seems to be opposed to Rothbard’s at every point…
How so? As far as I can tell, it’s identical. I even directly quoted him from the book in this thread to back myself up on this. Rothbard was not a defender of the status quo in property titles and was often mischaracterized by conservatives as a red for advocating positions on land reform and the transferance of state property into private hands that superficially can be misread as socialistic. All I’m really doing is reinterating Rothbard’s own position. If you don’t like it, form a counter-arguement to the principles espoused in TEOL. Your gripe is with Rothbard (or at least 60’s and 70’s Rothbard - his most radical years).
Not all stolen goods are worth recovering.
Redistribution will result in even greater destruction of property in order to retroactively apply libertarian laws that people didn’t know they were supposed to follow. That is why it is wrong morally and ethically.
There is nothing that corporations are doing that is immoral. They are simply following the rules and their self-interest. There is a difference between setting the rules and suffering them.
But…but… Think of the companies! They could starve to death! Poor them!
So then some thieves and owners of stolen goods should be allowed to keep their stolen goods? And which particular people should be able to keep stolen goods, and what gives them the right to be thieves and not others? Doesn’t that seem rather arbitrary? And should the state therefore be able to hold onto to some stolen goods? That’s quite a warped stand of justice you’ve got there. I haven’t read that one in any libertarian work. It would seem to run counter to the whole point.
What is wrong morally and ethically is theft. Restitution to the victims (which you disingenously want to characterize as a socialist redistribution scheme) is not wrong, it is the very essence of justice.
Halliburton and Blackwater, and other corporations that are in patonrage with the state and recieving stolen money, are perfectly moral? According to what libertarian theory? Could’ve fooled me!
We’re not supposed to blindly accept whatever “the rules” happen to be here, remember?
Haha. If a company cannot sustain itself through purely market means, then it deserves the detonation that it gets. Isn’t that kind of how the free market is supposed to work anyways? The inefficient buisinesses are weeded out by free competition.
Depends what you mean by “property titles”. He absolutely was a defender of the status quo ante for (most) non-state property, which appears to me to be what you lefty types are mostly concerned with in these rants (and otherwise I can’t see what you’re arguing against - it doesn’t even have meaning to talk about “defending the status quo” when it comes to state-“owned” property if you’re talking about doing away with the state! How can a non-existent entity own anything?)
“State property”
Hey if you want to try to take their stuff, good luck.
There is no pure market. And hence, it is impossible to survive by purely market means.
People who run businesses to put food on the table deal with reality, not theory.
I see. Business owners have no choice but to lobby for regulations to crush competition. Otherwise they couldn’t afford an island in the Caribbean and a Rolls Royce - such items are, of course, essential for their ‘survival’.
Exactly. If they do nothing competitors will.
If I don’t rob you, someone else will. Give me your wallet.
Exactly =]
Unnecessary. I basically live off the government, so it would end up at me anyway.