Why are you guys not left-libs? (besides hierarchy deconstruction)
Specifically (if I understand their ideas correctly), they believe that whoever uses the factors of production should be their owner and have access to them. What makes the permanent ownership of AnCap superior, in your opinion?
Private property aka “hierarchy” is the most efficient. Why do so many mutualist coops fail and so many hierarchical businesses succeed? Also left-libertarianism is akin to mutualism which promotes anti-private property and collectivist stances.
so a left -lib sees some property and thinks he’d like it. so he takes it.
case 1)
the previous owner abandoned it. the left lib is now the owner. end.
case 2)
the previous owner had not abandoned it and asserts his rights.
Case 2 sub a) the left-lib accepts this assertion and the original owners rights are confirmed, the left-lib wanders on his way
Case 2 sub b) the left-lib must demonstrate how the original owner has abandoned the property, given the fact that this is not case1 but case 2 this seems like a losing strategy. the original owners rights are confirmed, the left-lib wanders on his way
Private property aka “hierarchy” is the most efficient.
Explain what you mean by efficient and why efficiency is necessarily good. You can pass laws more quickly in a totalitarian state than in a democracy, yet I fail to see people arguing for totalitarianism due to its efficiency.
Also left-libertarianism is akin to mutualism which promotes anti-private property and collectivist stances.
I am asking exactly why you do not support this stance. As in “why is collectivism bad?”
nirgrahamUK, I don’t get your example. Can you explain?
It is a walkthrough that I intended to deflate ‘usufruct’ concept.
Alright, can you explain it some more?
From what I understand, you’re arguing that it’s tough to prove abandonment. Alright, but abandonment is legitimate in AnCap as well…
Under private property they could do whatever they want on/with their property (own what they use, use what they own, or have sex with it, for all I care) and I could do whatever I want on/with mine. Under no-property, we all must do whatever they want. Basically, I’m in awe of the superiority of the “live and let live” and “mind your own f-ing business” aspects of the private property concept.
Alright, but abandonment is legitimate in AnCap as well…
yeah, sure its legitimate to have abandonment and homesteading unowned objects. thats case 1.
so this left-lib attitude doesnt amount to much… unless you break on case 2b, i.e. there no property abandonment but there is a miscarriage of justice, a forced transfer from ‘not-abandoned-it’ original owner to the left libber usufructer.
If the left-libs are advocating for that then hows that not immoral?
Because, like the communists, the left-libs start their analysis in the middle, with firms, capital, and management already in existence. Sure, at that point the workerz could own the factories, but how did those factories come into existence in the first place? This would be feasible if ready-made factories somehow pop out of the sky. But in a world where economic activity does require coordination this would make modern economic performance utterly impossible.
Because, like the communists, the left-libs start their analysis in the middle, with firms, capital, and management already in existence. Sure, at that point the workerz could own the factories, but how did those factories come into existence in the first place?
Because, like the communists, the left-libs start their analysis in the middle, with firms, capital, and management already in existence. Sure, at that point the workerz could own the factories, but how did those factories come into existence in the first place?
Troll somewhere else plz.
Well, given that this is a thread about left-libertarianism, I’d say the input is not misplaced
You’re confusing left-libertarian with anarchist (mutualist and everything-“left”) again. Roderick Long is a left-lib.
You’re confusing left-libertarian with anarchist (mutualist and everything-“left”) again. Roderick Long is a left-lib.
So what’s the difference between mutualists and left-libs? Plz explain thoroughly.
This won’t be thorough, because I’m tired to the point of feeling nauseaus, but am also having a bout of insomnia.
In my opinion, left-libertarians are just regular american libertarians with some different social values tacked on, sometimes very convincingly and well, but not always that interesting. Mutualists are socialists, have a completely different methodology, and a have been part of a historical discourse that is vastly different from that of classical liberals.
so mutualists are the bad guys. Ok. So we will live left-libs alive in Libertopia.
About the non mutualist left libs
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/a-left-libertarian-manifesto/17110/66
Why would anyone pay to build a factory, if they could lose it to someone else?
No factory or other business enterprise can operate without an effective system for sound decision-making–about where to build the factory, whether to open a second factory, or a new branch, whether to make this product or drop that one, etc. These decisions decide the fate of the company; and ought to be made by whomever has the most at stake–or whomever that person hires to make such decisions, presumably someone who has shown sound decision-making in the past. Look at government today and you’ll see that leaving such decisions to common votes leads to more benefits and less revenue–to huge debt.
You could use the same logic to argue that:
Clearly the answer to this crique of libertarianism is that private ownership of roads pre-dated state ownership and the only reason all the roads are owned by the state today is because of the states monopoly on force - not because the of the obvious superiority of state roads.
And you can use a similiar argument against your critique of ‘left’-libertarians. The dominance of large, heirachical firms and wage labour is a product of past and current state intervention and not because of the obvious superiority of this mode of production.
My feelings exactly.
The best thing left libertarians bring to the table is the notion of thickness - that various libertarian positions entail holding some other position either by logical necessity or reasonable expectation of making the first position come into fruition. For example, even though racists could live in a free society without ever causing a single problem, racism as an ideology ought to be opposed by libertarians because it provides justifications for insitutions like slavery. If nearly everyone were to accept that Eskimos were sub-human, it would be much harder for libertarians to show why Eskimos ought to be free as well without introducing the concept of racial equality.
Rand actually had a similar position - the tribal mentality which underlies racism is non-compatible with the egoist mentality of capitalism, so to support the latter means to necessarily reject the former.