So as not to hijack this topic: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5540.aspx, I've decided to make a new topic for a more focused discussion.
Giles Stratton: Brainpolice:Didn't you just side-step his objection, which is that the scenario is predicated on a uniform law already being there, and hence is NOT free competition. No, each of these land holdings would have uniform laws. There would, however, be many of them, which means competition. Once again, it's analogous to competition between says steel factories. Moreover there's always the possibility of the owner being bought out. Brainpolice:The problem is that this is conceptually incoherant. A monarchy by definition is not something that is purely chosen. Correct, which is where the disctinction lies. Brainpolice:There is no such thing as a free choice between monarchs, the very fact that it is monarchs being chosen from means that the context is not fully free. It isn't "monarchs" being chosen though. That's the point, it's a choice between different feudal like land arrangements. Perhaps this doesn't quite coincide with your view of anarchism, but that's not my problem. Your whole view of being "fully free" confuses lack of coercion with being able to do as you please. You clearly favour the latter, in which case you shouldn't rush to get rid of the state. Brainpolice:We currently can also choose between democratic states, but that doesn't make us free. Yes and democratic states don't own their land as these feudal land arrangements would, which is precisely what makes the difference. Brainpolice:Furthermore, monarchy does not differ from democracy when it comes to the fundamentals of a state, I.E. it too is not funded purely voluntarily and it too is predicated on an illegitimate territorial monopoly. Yes, you're correct. Brainpolice:It is nonsensical to try to make the distinction you are making because switching to a libertarian theoretical context cannot logically lead us back to an authoritarian institution or framework. What people keep objecting to is the monarchy part, which inherently is predicated on a breach of the libertarian context. And once more, you're incorrectly conflating my position with that of a true monarch, who doesn't own the land that he rules. Brainpolice:The institutionalization of this rent as a uniform law for the entire community irrespective of the individual IS taxation. Not if I own the land, no, it isn't. Unless you say that the shops that have rented space in a mall are paying some form of taxation. Brainpolice: In this way, a feudal land arrangement is the perfect pretext for taxation and a state's territorial claim. I could say the same about the natural forces that counter the power of the state that you despise. Brainpolice:Your understanding of left-libertarianism is so bad that you've ended up accusing people who are in fact not left-libertarians of being left-libertarians. Your understanding of English is apparently so poor that you've intepreted me calling him a LL, I haven't.
Brainpolice:Didn't you just side-step his objection, which is that the scenario is predicated on a uniform law already being there, and hence is NOT free competition.
No, each of these land holdings would have uniform laws. There would, however, be many of them, which means competition. Once again, it's analogous to competition between says steel factories. Moreover there's always the possibility of the owner being bought out.
Brainpolice:The problem is that this is conceptually incoherant. A monarchy by definition is not something that is purely chosen.
Correct, which is where the disctinction lies.
Brainpolice:There is no such thing as a free choice between monarchs, the very fact that it is monarchs being chosen from means that the context is not fully free.
It isn't "monarchs" being chosen though. That's the point, it's a choice between different feudal like land arrangements. Perhaps this doesn't quite coincide with your view of anarchism, but that's not my problem.
Your whole view of being "fully free" confuses lack of coercion with being able to do as you please. You clearly favour the latter, in which case you shouldn't rush to get rid of the state.
Brainpolice:We currently can also choose between democratic states, but that doesn't make us free.
Yes and democratic states don't own their land as these feudal land arrangements would, which is precisely what makes the difference.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, monarchy does not differ from democracy when it comes to the fundamentals of a state, I.E. it too is not funded purely voluntarily and it too is predicated on an illegitimate territorial monopoly.
Yes, you're correct.
Brainpolice:It is nonsensical to try to make the distinction you are making because switching to a libertarian theoretical context cannot logically lead us back to an authoritarian institution or framework. What people keep objecting to is the monarchy part, which inherently is predicated on a breach of the libertarian context.
And once more, you're incorrectly conflating my position with that of a true monarch, who doesn't own the land that he rules.
Brainpolice:The institutionalization of this rent as a uniform law for the entire community irrespective of the individual IS taxation.
Not if I own the land, no, it isn't. Unless you say that the shops that have rented space in a mall are paying some form of taxation.
Brainpolice: In this way, a feudal land arrangement is the perfect pretext for taxation and a state's territorial claim.
I could say the same about the natural forces that counter the power of the state that you despise.
Brainpolice:Your understanding of left-libertarianism is so bad that you've ended up accusing people who are in fact not left-libertarians of being left-libertarians.
Your understanding of English is apparently so poor that you've intepreted me calling him a LL, I haven't.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
From here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_1.pdf
Spencer MacCallum: A small landlord, leasing or renting to perhaps one tenant, has little hope of improving or rearranging the environment of that small parce lto make it more valuable to the tenant. He is almost as helpless as an individual owner who uses the land directly. He lets it for whatever use and level of use the existing surroundings permit, and has little control over how community infrastructure is provided. If he looks for any improvement at all, it is for municipal government to intervene on hisbehalf. But as he enlarges his holding or combines with others to achieve a holding of more practical size, and begins to lease not to one but to multiple tenants, he gains leverage over the environment. He may now find it economically feasible and in his interest to build substantial physical infrastructure for tenants in a multi-tenant property. But even before that, he finds that he creates environment in the very act of leasing to multiple tenants, since each tenant becomes a factor in the environment of every other. This has been carried to high levels of sophistication in the selection and arrangement of tenants in shopping malls.
A small landlord, leasing or renting to perhaps one tenant, has little hope of improving or rearranging the environment of that small parce lto make it more valuable to the tenant. He is almost as helpless as an individual owner who uses the land directly. He lets it for whatever use and level of use the existing surroundings permit, and has little control over how community infrastructure is provided. If he looks for any improvement at all, it is for municipal government to intervene on hisbehalf.
But as he enlarges his holding or combines with others to achieve a holding of more practical size, and begins to lease not to one but to multiple tenants, he gains leverage over the environment. He may now find it economically feasible and in his interest to build substantial physical infrastructure for tenants in a multi-tenant property. But even before that, he finds that he creates environment in the very act of leasing to multiple tenants, since each tenant becomes a factor in the environment of every other. This has been carried to high levels of sophistication in the selection and arrangement of tenants in shopping malls.
And again:
Spencer MacCallum: Multi-tenant income properties are, essentially, communities. As such, they stand out against the tragic record of traditional, subdivided communities, which are unable to be run any way other than politically. Subdivisions are not market phenomena because they do not sell a product, nor have they any customers.Hence, they generate no income, but must subsist on assessments or tax levies. Multi-tenant income properties, on the other hand, are business enterprises. Because they serve customers, they earn an income. Producing a market revenue makes them self-supporting—and more than merely self-supporting. Not only do market revenues finance the current operation, they enable the accumulation of reserve funds from which to renovate as required
Multi-tenant income properties are, essentially, communities. As such, they stand out against the tragic record of traditional, subdivided communities, which are unable to be run any way other than politically. Subdivisions are not market phenomena because they do not sell a product, nor have they any customers.Hence, they generate no income, but must subsist on assessments or tax levies. Multi-tenant income properties, on the other hand, are business enterprises. Because they serve customers, they earn an income. Producing a market revenue makes them self-supporting—and more than merely self-supporting. Not only do market revenues finance the current operation, they enable the accumulation of reserve funds from which to renovate as required
Another very important quotation:
Spencer MacCallum: A natural question arises regarding the growth and spread of multitenant income properties. Why, with the major exception of apartments and hotels, has nothing comparable happened in the housing field?... A different explanation is cultural—the longstanding ideological bias in America favoring home ownership over renting or leasing that traces to colonial times and the repudiation of the last vestiges of feudalism in Europe. Still another explanation is public policy. Detached, single-family subdivision housing has been aggressively promoted since the 1930s by a close involvement of the federal government with the corporate building industry. In addition, federal income tax policy discriminates against renting or leasing for residential use. The federal government also directly subsidizes homeownership through its various federal mortgage insurance programs. The fact that such insurance only covers homes in a subdivision with a qualifying homeowners’ association in effect mandates subdivision housing, since most builders feel their product must qualify for federal insurance if they are to remain competitivein the industry Added to these various federal requirements, the taxing of dividends at substantially higher rates than capital gains (at top rates the difference is 39.5 percent versus 20 percent) encourages short-term venturing for capital gain, as in subdivision housing, over conservative, long-term investment for income.
A natural question arises regarding the growth and spread of multitenant income properties. Why, with the major exception of apartments and hotels, has nothing comparable happened in the housing field?... A different explanation is cultural—the longstanding ideological bias in America favoring home ownership over renting or leasing that traces to colonial times and the repudiation of the last vestiges of feudalism in Europe. Still another explanation is public policy. Detached, single-family subdivision housing has been aggressively promoted since the 1930s by a close involvement of the federal government with the corporate building industry.
In addition, federal income tax policy discriminates against renting or leasing for residential use. The federal government also directly subsidizes homeownership through its various federal mortgage insurance programs. The fact that such insurance only covers homes in a subdivision with a qualifying homeowners’ association in effect mandates subdivision housing, since most builders feel their product must qualify for federal insurance if they are to remain competitivein the industry
Added to these various federal requirements, the taxing of dividends at substantially higher rates than capital gains (at top rates the difference is 39.5 percent versus 20 percent) encourages short-term venturing for capital gain, as in subdivision housing, over conservative, long-term investment for income.
Spencer MacCallum:It is noteworthy that Spencer Heath, more than a half-century ago, was not so much proposing a social reform as he was merely predicting a future course of events, extrapolating from the market process as he understood it from events happening around him. If the scenario he forecast is correct, the commercial real estate industry will find it in its business interest to voluntarily assume the full provision of public services locally and regionally. Not the least of these services will be to untax land users and relieve them of the manifold burdens of political government. In this way will the industry promote general prosperity while building land values for its investors throughout the population. Through local and regional realty associations, neighborhoodwill compete with neighborhood, community with community, and region with region. On all of these levels, the competitive provision of common goods will be among the most highly profitable of all enterprises.
Spencer MacCallum: At the beginning of this article, I stated the unlikely sounding proposition that human environment, both social and physical, resembles any other good or service in that it is amenable to being manufactured, marketed, and maintained through the competitive processes of the market.
At the beginning of this article, I stated the unlikely sounding proposition that human environment, both social and physical, resembles any other good or service in that it is amenable to being manufactured, marketed, and maintained through the competitive processes of the market.
In a free society there are no criminal coke dealers(drugs would be 'legal' anyway) or gangs, and noise would be dealt with by PDAs I hope. The idea that if you buy an expensive house you'll be living in a place that resembles a slum is outright silly and shows how far fetched your ideas are.
You're just being pedantic now, and side stepping the issue. The fact of the matter is that in the arrangement you advocate there is nothing you can do to stop the price of your house declining in situations like these.
You got it backwards eh ? If in a given area houses are valued highly that means the place is 'exclusive'. I'll assume that in a free society people who have money to buy expensive houses made their money honestly which means they are good at business and generally successful. I don't see how successful entrepreneurs can be undesirable neighbors...
Once again, this is just you being pedantic.
I thought the myth of the free rider had been debunked ages ago ?
What do you mean? The problem of public goods is still relevant, the problem is that most people who raise them in opposition to anarchism consider them in a vacuum, which isn't the case.
You can build infrastructure by buying land between two properties. Of course, you must still allow free access to other properties (e.g. allow simple crossing of a long road without demanding payment). Besides, there's no reason land should be bought in square-like parcels. It's like saying a 1000x20 m^2 production facility is public goods.
"Inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism. Better known as libertarianism."
Give me a break. Your principles and/or your application of them blatantly contradict libertarianism, and it doesn't take a left-libertarian perspective to see why it is absurd to define libertarianism in terms of "inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism". Clearly, you are being trollish and disingenous.
GilesStratton:You're just being pedantic now, and side stepping the issue.
What do you mean? The problem of public goods is still relevant,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Under libertarianism there won't be a state around to pass laws against inequality, conservatism, feudalism and elitism.
Compare the mediocrity, the dysfunction, the frustrated gnosticism under the state's ruthlessly egalitarian order to, say, a successful football team, a complex construction project, or Porsche's brilliant financial coup of Volkswagen, and watch the Left's pretty little lies perish.
Under libertarianism there won't be a state to promote or back up inequality, conservatism, feudalism and elitism. Under libertarianism there is likewise no state to uniformly ban equality, liberalism, "alternative lifestyles", communes, unions, and so on. So what's your point? It does not logically follow from libertarianism that those things (your clear preferance for traditionalism and conservatism) become dominant or uniform, and the moment that you advocate them in such a way (I.E. as uniform or compulsory) you are no longer being consistant with libertarianism.
Compare the mediocrity, the dysfunction, the frustrated gnosticism under the state's ruthlessly egalitarian order
And here you return to the same false premises that have already been debunked. The state's order is not egalitarian. The structure of the state itself is not egalitarian, and the structure of society that a state enables is not egalitarian either. So your claims are simply detached from reality.
to, say, a successful football team, a complex construction project, or Porsche's brilliant financial coup of Volkswagen, and watch the Left's pretty little lies perish.
Your rhetoric about "the left" (which is just a buzzword for you at this point) is amusing, as well as the fact that you naively attribute all success in the world to conservative values and assume that "the left" is opposed to such things per se.
I must agree with Brainpolice.
As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.
I think some people on here don`t know what feudalism is. Which wouldn`t be a problem if they weren`t so eager to use the word.
Brainpolice:Under libertarianism there is likewise no state to uniformly ban equality, liberalism, "alternative lifestyles", communes, unions, and so on. So what's your point?
All those activities owe their existence to the democratic state because the market could give a shit about them. In a free market, unions are trade guilds, and they don't spend two seconds worrying over the fact that not enough women and blacks are becoming engineers. Communes--the only successful ones are patriarchal/religious. And even the convents require a priest to act as celebrant and confessor. Alternative lifestyles are just that: marginal and isolated.
Personally, I can't wait for anarchy.
spires: As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.
There's a website about people like you:
www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com
No. I'll continue to comment as I wish. I won't tell you to shut up however; your ideas are hilarious!
Byzantine: spires: As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up. There's a website about people like you: www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com
Way to ignorantly lash out. You don't know anything about me! Keep going, this is fun.
spires:No. I'll continue to comment as I wish. I won't tell you to shut up however; your ideas are hilarious!
On the contrary, how about that notion that all people are equally educable so we should build public schools so everybody can be a genius. That one's a real hoot. Or that employers don't know who the best person is for a given job so we need to enact legal mandates to make sure they hire enough women and ethnic minorities. What a knee-slapper.
If this is directed towards me, I neither support public schools nor hiring quotas. I support no state action; I am an anarchist.
I don't believe all people are equally educable, and I have had experience with employers hiring people for reasons that do not amount to merit. I do believe that all employers are not equally educable, for instance.
All those activities owe their existence to the democratic state because the market could give a shit about them.
That premise is unjustifiable. The state did not invent equality, social liberal preferances, alternative lifestyles, communes and unions. There are people in society who have a demand for such things. The market, in turn, is capable of supplying those things. So long as there are people in society who have a demand for such things, a supply will tend to arise in the attempt to appease such demands. You're very blatantly conflating "the market" with your demands as an individual, but "the market" tends to represent the sum total of demands of those who participate in it. There is no rational basis for you to claim that "the market" inherently will lead to a uniformly conservative society, other than to merely assert your preferance for it to.
Alternative lifestyles are just that: marginal and isolated.
It does not follow from the mere fact that a particular lifestyle is alternative or practised by a minority that it is not tolerated per se, or that it is illegal per se, or that it is completely isolated per se. All you're doing is asserting your preferance for it to be marginalized and isolated, not proving a fact that it inherently must be.
Me too, because anarchy is NOT what you're defining it as - a society that is even more heirarchical than what we have today.
Brainpolice:There is no rational basis for you to claim that "the market" inherently will lead to a uniformly conservative society, other than to merely assert your preferance for it to.
It won't be uniformly conservative. There'll be plenty of places like Oakland, Detroit, Camden, etc.
Well I think it`s pretty clear Byzantie is an Amish hater. He is always going on about communes and alternative lifestyles.
spires: I must agree with Brainpolice. As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.
They both gladly play the bad guy, but if you follow the argument closely, they make their arguments, and their opponents do not refute them with ideas or facts. Just dissent.
I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word. Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone. They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.
And that really upsets some people, who ironically claim that their opponents (apparently including myself based on past posts) are conservative (attached to established order) when in fact, their notion of social justice is the state established position.
Also note, that while Giles and Byzantine are attacked for being pro-hierarchy, ask yourself honestly, does mankind naturally order itself hierarchically? I would say so. There are too many examples outside of the state to make the case.
And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order.
This is counter to honest discourse on liberty. The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free. All preferences are not equal. All preferences do not share the exact same opportunity costs.
I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap