JohnSchreimann: What I don't understand is the insistence that we must be suspicious of all property titles or wealth that exists currently.
I don't know of any libertarians who think all property titles are legitimate.
The problem is that many libertarians start their analysis as if this is the case.
Most people today do not believe thieves need to have their property protected.
And yet this is implicit in their defense of both the state and various so-called "private" entities.
What I don't understand is the insistence that we must be suspicious of all property titles or wealth that exists currently.
That's not precisely the contention and I'm getting tired of having to reiterate the point over and over again.
And what do we do in a just society to reverse the actions of the state supposedly giving some too much or protecting property illegitimately... trace back where it really belongs and give it to someone else? That seems like too confusing an operation.
The alternative is to accept and defend the status quo.
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.
JohnSchreimann: 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."
Do we really need MORE regulators?
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Brainpolice: Rothbard outlines the answer to that question quite well in "The Ethics of Liberty".
But your position seems to be opposed to Rothbard's at every point...
μὴ παραχώρει τοῖς κακοῖς ἀλλ' εὐτολμώτερον ἀντιβάδιζε.
Paul: Brainpolice: Rothbard outlines the answer to that question quite well in "The Ethics of Liberty". 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.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
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.
There is nothing that corporations are doing that is immoral.
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!
They are simply following the rules and their self-interest.
We're not supposed to blindly accept whatever "the rules" happen to be here, remember?
Nitroadict: But...but... Think of the companies! They could starve to death! Poor them!
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.
Brainpolice: 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
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
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?)
Brainpolice: and was often mischaracterized by conservatives as a red for advocating positions on land reform and the transferance of state property into private hands
and was often mischaracterized by conservatives as a red for advocating positions on land reform and the transferance of state property into private hands
"State property"
Brainpolice:So then some thieves and owners of stolen goods should be allowed to keep their stolen goods?
Hey if you want to try to take their stuff, good luck.
Brainpolice: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.
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 would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.