I doubt you will get an answer to this question.
How (in principle) could I verify or falsify the statement “the power you are wielding over me is arbitrary”? My intuition tells me that the notion of “arbitrary” you are relying on is very central to your concept of freedom and if it wobbles so does “freedom”. Also, how related is your conception of freedom to republican liberty (or less commonly neo-Roman liberty)? It sounds like it has more than coincidental similarities.
Me:
“What’s wrong with absentee ownership? Just how absent does an owner have to be to lose legal title to his property?”
LS:
“I doubt you will get an answer to this question.”
I agree. But these are fairly obvious question to ask. You would think that mutualists would have already thought of them and have ready answers.
Maybe it’s his notions of freedom which are arbitrary. He keeps talking about what he considers this and that to be, what his position is, ect. all without any actual rationale or justification.
I agree, but I have never seen someone promoting this stuff defend it clearly and without contradiction in my 3 years here.
Left Libertarianism is a ‘leftist’ kind of libertarianism.It melds leftist economic/cultural concerns(e.g. workers,bosses,co-ops etc) with libertarian concern for
I have concerns about my cat and Netflix, what does this mean?
It’s a means of moving beyonf restrictive labels such as ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ to find the truth and confusion in all of these concepts and those in between.
I won’t speak for others, but I think it is fair that in the LvMI institute there are very definite definitions of Capitalism and Socialism as defined by Mises himself, agree with the definitions or not, it is reasonable to assume that is the language discussed on Mises.org. That is what we are talking about, as there is a very restrictive definition between an apple to an orange, there ought to be restrictive definitions between scientific economic systems.
No longer do we need the false capitalism = pro market vs leftistm/socialism =anti market
Why not?
Also, to paraphrase another poster; are we talking about “crystal balls”, because I think most of us here are trying to discuss the means and not the ends.
don’t want to sound like a mutualist, but the question about use and time could be a bit misleading. Isn’t property abandonment part of AnCap theory. Pretty sure I heard Lew Rockwell give a lecture on it once. Something like 20 years before it is available to homestead again, could have been 7, I really can’t remember. Either way it seems like the difference between the two ideas is more on the focus and wording, than on being so different in kind. I do find their wording to be very strange. There is a mutualist on the FSP forum and he comes up with the craziest replies that just make me say, “how the hell did you even think that?”
I don’t believe it specifically is because …
That would be pretty arbitrary. Time is a poor measure of rights.
There are quite a few left-libertarians and mutualists, who don’t think that property is currently owned by the right people, and advocate people in factories taking over the factories and throwing out management/owners, as the workers using a machine have a higher claim to it than the people (or their agents) who invested or attracted the capital to purchase that machine.
They aren’t worried about cabins that have not been in use for 20 years. They want to take stuff with fairly clear title (because they don’t believe the titles can ever be legit) right now.
It’s crazy stuff.
How (in principle) could I verify or falsify the statement “the power you are wielding over me is arbitrary”? My intuition tells me that the notion of “arbitrary” you are relying on is very central to your concept of freedom and if it wobbles so does “freedom”. Also, how related is your conception of freedom to republican liberty (or less commonly neo-Roman liberty)? It sounds like it has more than coincidental similarities.
I found this curious as well, though I was just wondering if he was simply stating an existential reality.
Also this:
I consider my notion of freedom “more robust” because it transcends territorial boundaries and has a wider bundle of requirements (sufficient conditions) for its realizability
“transcending territorial boundries” is a rather curious value statement, as well as stating you “require more conditions for freedom to be more free” and “this freedom as an end in itself is good”. Am I translating this correct? And is this mutualism?
I can’t believe I’m about to write these words but here goes.BP I somewhat understand your argument.Recently it’s been worrying me just how much authority is invested in the owner of land esp housing.They can practically dictate anyone within it’s life.Now clearly there are limits- for example self ownership is before external ownership thus even on someones property slavery,murder,rape etc are still aggression and also reason limits what someone can demand e.g. no property owner can say that if you blink you’ve violated their rights because such is absurd.But beyond these limits there’s a lot of way for a large amount of control that I’m tolerant of but quite unhappy about.It might be a property right but as Rothbard said a right to X ,does not imply use of X in a certain way is moral.
Again BP I’ve come to agree. This is what I’ve wrote in this threat above. An-cap ignores issues like bargaining power, workplace democracy, feminism,racism,sexism, equality etc. It has a tendency towards dismissal of them often knee jerk based on the idea they are socialist or package dealing it fallaciously with Statism.
With all due respect to you guys here who to be clear I do not hate and bare no ill will, I find an-cap in it’s analysis to be superficial to some extent ,it’s substance restrictive and limited and it’s scope close to conventional with reactionary strokes.
"“i and i think many on here would agree that 1-3 are problems.”
I don’t think an-caps live outside the paradigm that you can be socialist and free market so 2 is still a problem for them.
I don’t think an-caps seriously consider a free market without corporations or wage labour or boss-employee relations etc.
“4 is rather broad. how do you define communism?”
I’m still figuring it out.
What I mean to say to be clear is that anything which sounds traditionally leftist/socialist/communist in terms of rhetoric or concepts is very quickly opposed/mocked by an-caps. An-caps cannot conceive of free market leftism.
I disagree.It favours and imagines different institutions and structures,has different values-moral and cultural,different concerns…
I don’t know the answer because I’m not a mutualist.But Mutualist Kevin Carson has said that simply leaving your property alone to go to work etc is not enough to lose it.
This is just a knee jerk critique, unsubstantiated, unsourced and without any depth or indication of merit.
Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to claim otherwise, prove it.
What have you seen written? Source please.
Because you see no ancap literature, does that mean ancap literature does not exist? Are you omniscient?
Who has made a knee jerk dismissal? Source please.
Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? I need to know if you are omniscient, or if you are just a regular mind reader. Please enlighten us.