A friend of mine posted this.
And the point is ???
I think in order to be a good market anarchist, one must consider the benefits of private property in the market.
“Private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental institution of the market economy. It is the institution the presence of which characterizes the market economy as such. Where it is absent, there is no question of a market economy.” -Mises, Human Action
I believe what Mises said about private property in relation to the markets is absolutely spot on that it beats any moral justifcation for or against private property.
Anyone feel like left libertarianism exists only because cultural marxism exists?
haha… Well i just find it odd that they believe in markets, most claim to be market anarchists or something similar to that but most would completely ignore the Market issue to things like this and instead advocate some sort of public property. in other words, they rather choose morality over markets. why? *Of course, what I mean by market is by what is explained in Economics
Edit: Pseudo double post, thought my browser was messing up, so I retyped the post from memory.
Are you talking about Long or KV?
I mean they share all the same views on the market. It seems more like they are just trying to emulate anarchosocialists or leftists out of some cultural guilt or something. It seems really superficial considering that market anarchists/minarchists weren’t conservative. I mean this is why the reject the word capitalism if you think about it. I’m thinking this leftist focus on intentions. As if we don’t care about the poor. I’m sure plenty of market anarchists have some sort of compassion and aren’t total sociopaths. The point is in market anarchism, it would not matter what your morals were in political realm, because that wouldn’t exist for it to matter.
The only time I feel like it would make sense to hold this view, would be out of satire. To try to make fun of leftist semantics, by defending market anarchist ideals with leftist semantics. That, or try to create an alliance with the left. I don’t mind that at all, at least with libertarian leaning left. But to have all the same ideas but for some other reason sounds totally retarded.
If you were talking to me LS, I was just ranting.
I was talking to you and you keep not answering me. You must really want off my christmas card list this year.
wants back on Christmas card list
I’m talking about left libertarians. What is KV?
KV was the person in the comments of the post you linked to.
The problem is, you make a thread with just a link, with no other info, and you don’t clarify what it is you’re talking about. Then you ignore me when I try to get you to clarify.
What exactly is your issue, and who is it with?
No, my issue is mostly with Long here and left libertarians in general. Long says:
"Hence libertarianism has to endorse either very strong property rights claims or no property rights claims at all. Why not the latter option? "
Why would a libertarian who believes in free markets have issues with private property? You need private property to perform a service and for the economy to run. You need private property in order to live freely.
Then I said “Anyone feel like left libertarianism exists only because cultural marxism exists”
I’m proposing that it would make sense for them to be so effected by cultural leftism (fetish with equality), that they feel they have to back up it’s claims. Why else would they call themselves “left”?
I think that is true if we are loosely speaking about our views on the market. I think it is better to say, “we share some of the same views on the market.” This issue on private property is a perfect example on how our views are different. (well kind of) I agree with them on the whole coercion thing, that at the beginning stages where land is not owned, taking over the land that is not yours to begin with, and then claiming it after you mixed in your labor is in fact some sense of coercion. But that is not something that I did not know, nor is it something that others didn’t know about private property. for example, a little further reading after the quote I stated before, Mises states,
“The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts that were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoliation of their predecessor.” *
The reason why I find Mises position far better than the LL position is because Mises’ justification for private property goes beyond the issue on morality, he justifies the issue based on how it affects the market. And it only make sense that market anarchists should really concern their justification using the market and not morality.
I understand but to some of the ‘left lib’ market anarchists, their justification for calling themselves ‘left’ goes back during the time where the classical liberals sat on the left side of chamber during the time of the french revolution. But those classical liberals, would be considered ‘conservative’ to their standards (and mainstream standards) today.
That is exactly what I am trying to get across. I think ‘our side’ of market anarchism is more consistent in this view. (Although, some on ‘our side’ are also guilty in this fallacy of morality over markets in their justifications, imo).
On a side note though, I do not hate them. I do read R.Long’s articles and blogs quite frequently, and some of his stuff is amazing. For example, I believe his Responses to the Ten Objections is one of the best articles in defending anarchism. I think there are other writings that defend anarchism better than this article, but the sources I am thinking of are quite long books. Long’s article is one of the best because not only does it have good points, but it is a quick read and a great introduction for people that are interested in reading about anarchism
- LvMises, Human Action p 683
Sometimes they get on my nerves, and I like bashing them, but all in all, I think they are mostly the same goal or at least result. I don’t see them as “left” at all. IRL most of my interactions have been good. As long as we both support voluntary means, identifying ourselves as seperate things doesn’t matter at all. I got real upset that Scott F went off the deepend and left. I liked his posts a long time ago. Also another I like to make clear about left libertarianism is the association with the left. I associate with them a lot. I don’t see myself as too different, I feel our out looks are the same, we want people to have more comfortable lives and we are tolerant. Or at least that’s the ideal, not what the actual theory is. Being labeled as right wing or conservative really pisses me off. I have been for peace and freedom way too long to be compared to a republican. Semantics arguments and issues are the most retarded issues period, and have no basis in reality. You could call the communist system “a free system” for a hundred years, but the results of the system would stay the same.
I have Ten Objections open in the tab next to this one right now…
@LS, I hope my last post clarified my objectives in starting the thread.
Well, then I agree. I find Long’s positions sometimes agreeable, but his philosophy ad hoc and anachronistic, like most leftists. I am not sure what LLism has to offer the world outside of young culturally guilt-ridden males or middle aged underachievement.
Needless to say, Charlie Sheen is not a LL.