**
This just gives me a headache..
Libertarian Socialist > Libertarian Communist >Libertarian Marxist (Autonomist; Council Communist; Situationist)
Libertarian Socialist > Libertarian Communist > Social Anarchist (Anarcho-communist)
Libertarian Socialist > Anarchist > Social Anarchist (Anarcho-communist)
Libertarian Socialist > Anarchist > Market Anarchist (Mutualist; Individualist Anarchist)
Classical Liberal > Left-libertarian
???
I thought left-lib and mutualist were used interchangably.
BTW how exactly do left-libs and muties define a “land monopoly” from legit property?
Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms.
Legitimate property has been homesteaded, the land monopoly refers to illegitimate property is land that has has been claimed through fiat by the state.
Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms.
K. So it’s an umbrella term then?
Legitimate property has been homesteaded, the land monopoly refers to illegitimate property is land that has has been claimed through fiat by the state.
So why are muties against landlords and paying rent?
[quote=“Freedom4Me73986”]
Nope. Mutualism is particular stance on ownership, left-libertarianism is a vague term that can include everyone from left-Rothbardians (my least favourite label. ever) to ancoms.
K. So it’s an umbrella term then?
[/quote ]Yes. However it is often used to refer only to left-wing market-anarchists, who range from left-Rothbardians to mutualists and are best represented by The Center For A Stateless Society
The main reason is because they don’t believe in full private property in land. Continueous use is necessary for property in land under mutualism. So by claiming rent from someone you are making them charge a toll for living on their own land, which is theft.
However historically the state has acted to both bring rents up by holding land out of production and enforcing planning laws, make sure landlords owned the frontier land through land grants, and take landfrom it’s rightful owners and given it to favored landlords. So while a Lockean would reject the mutualist philosophical critique of rents, the historical critique has something to it.
Essentially, then, they make an exception against full private property when it comes to land, because… they don’t want to pay rent.
However, I think the basis for that exception “proves too much”. If one leaves his land to go to work, then under strict occupation-and-use doctrine, it’s no longer his. Also, a person may not be occupying and/or using every piece of his land at a given time. So we see that there are issues of granularity in both space and time.
Once they start to treat occupation-and-use doctrine in a less-than-strict sense, there’s no way to qualitatively differentiate between their sense of it and the sense in which Lockean property theory can be said to treat it.
Indeed. The state has followed neither occupation-and-use property theory nor Lockean property theory.
Essentially, then, they make an exception against full private property when it comes to land, because… they don’t want to pay rent.
Then it’s easy to ridicule AnCaps by saying “Essentially, then, they make an exception against laws when it comes to property, because… they don’t want to pay taxes”
If one leaves his land to go to work, then under strict occupation-and-use doctrine, it’s no longer his.
I think they solve this through the “reasonability” response 
No, anarcho-capitalists oppose the state - and thus state-made law - per se. No exceptions.
My point is that that’s no solution at all. Lockean property theory also provides for “reasonability”, including for such things as abandonment.
Wheylous, where’s your avatar gone? He always used to cheer me up. What was it anyway?
No, anarcho-capitalists oppose the state - and thus state-made law - per se. No exceptions.
I think Wheylous makes a good point. As far as I can tell, ancaps define the state as an illegitimate owner of land. If a person or group could own unhomesteaded land, then that would be a state.
By “own unhomesteaded land”, you mean “be considered to own the land without homesteading it first”?
Otherwise, it appears that I refuted Wheylous’ point, so (with all due respect to Wheylous) maybe it wasn’t such a good point.
it appears that I refuted Wheylous’ point, so (with all due respect to Wheylous)
You bastard!
As to my avatar, he will be back soon. It was the lulzsec logo
So you agree that I refuted it?
By “own unhomesteaded land”, you mean “be considered to own the land without homesteading it first”?
Yes. Though I think I missed your point about it being an exception to their other property rights. I get what you’re saying now (I don’t know enough about mutualism to say whether I agree or not).
I agree with you that one or more people controlling, or being considered to own (i.e. legitimately control), land without homesteading it first would constitute a de facto state. However, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I allow homesteading to be performed by someone on behalf of someone else.
I’m glad you get what I’m saying now about the occupation-and-use adherents’ exception against full property rights in land. Actually, though, the exception goes farther - it extends to all forms of property. The reason remains the same - they don’t want to pay rent. What I’m wondering is why.
Because people still insist on trying to abolish it, despite its impossibility, and attempting to negate reality has major, major consequences. Some people have decided that men don’t need to eat food to live, but if they try to force that on a whole society they become very dangerous.
“Because people still insist on trying to abolish it, despite its impossibility”
sigh
Here’s an important distinction to make when speaking broadly of socialist views on property, from a guy who is more or less considered an authority on the matter:
“The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” -Karl Marx
Similar sentiments appear in Proudhon, Tucker, Goldman, Berkman, etc. Opposition to private property is not opposition to individual property, or possession, or appropriation broadly defined.
As you were…
I certainly did not arrive at anarchocap through classical liberalism. I found this to be the logical end for my pursuit of a true rightist, individualist defence of private property. In answer to the thread, I am not a leftist because I am not a collectivist. Even if some leftists are anarch they still are collectivist and still lack that respect for other peoples business, for example as a right libertarian I dont mind the existence of racists because although I do not personally hold their opinions, they are their opinions and therefore none of my business. Left libertarians on the other hand would still want to stamp out that racism. They tend to believe in the greater good.
A. Marx is virtually unreadable, as that quote demonstrates. One can only hope it’s less a cloud of high-sounding equivocation and roundaboutness when read in context. Hard to imagine tho.
B. I’ll quote you again what the Chinese farmers were told when the communists took over:
They asked who owns the fields, and were told “The People do.”
They then asked who owns the teeth in their mouth and were told, “The People do.”
That is both a negation of individual property AND self-ownership.
That is the substitution of actual private property for fake share in corporate ownership of everything, which really means controlling and owning nothing. If you cannot control the fate of a thing, you do not own it. Despite the rhetoric of corporate ownership, of the people owning everything collectively, the actual result of communism is that those whom control society own everything and everyone else owns nothing. In fact, the poeple themselves are owned by the power elite.
Mao’s great leap forward, which killed some 20 million Chinese, resulted from trying to communize the farms. THe Khmer rouge had similar problems, but worse. And North Korea cannot feed itself. Russia too let food rot on the farms while the people starved, and begged wheat and farming know-how off western countries.
What turned things around was an agreement in one village to start working their own property again, rather than collectively. The communists caught on when productivity soared. The officials later allowed this model to propagate across China, thus ending the starvation, and also striking a blow to communist concepts of collective ownership that redound into today’s free-market-friendly communism in China.