Political Theory

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

wombatron — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:12:53 GMT

ThorsMitersaw:

wombatron:

No problem. Life would be boring if everyone agreed with you 100% right off the bat

right off the WOMbat? hahaha

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

C.H. Hellstrom — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:52:14 GMT

liberty student:

I'm tolerant, but if Carson really thinks as a capitalist, and I am going to let the much larger group of labour (anarcho-soc-syn-com) vote away my property, how the heck is that any different than what we have today?

Well, that wouldn't be different.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

ThorsMitersaw — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:27:33 GMT

liberty student:

ThorsMitersaw:

The main point of my posting this was to show that it is possible to have a society where people have different ideas of property than you do.

Well thats pretty much the state of the world as it is, but I do not much care for it. I suppose I am a bit intolerant. Again, I have no sympathy for the "savages" I describe from "region X".

I'm tolerant, but if Carson really thinks as a capitalist, and I am going to let the much larger group of labour (anarcho-soc-syn-com) vote away my property, how the heck is that any different than what we have today?

I want a world where savages can be savages (or not) and civilized people can be free (or not) as they each choose.

well what I mean by intolerant is that I am not going to care much about their customs and bullshit if it gets in my way. Shoudl they all decide to move into my neighborhood I will continue to act as I believe just and they will just have to kiss my ass. I am not saying I am on a crusade or what not.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

Nitroadict — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:21:16 GMT

ThorsMitersaw:

wombatron:

No problem. Life would be boring if everyone agreed with you 100% right off the bat

right off the WOMbat? hahaha

ba dum bum.

But seriously, don't give your day job :D

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

liberty student — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:17:22 GMT

ThorsMitersaw:

The main point of my posting this was to show that it is possible to have a society where people have different ideas of property than you do.

Well thats pretty much the state of the world as it is, but I do not much care for it. I suppose I am a bit intolerant. Again, I have no sympathy for the "savages" I describe from "region X".

I'm tolerant, but if Carson really thinks as a capitalist, and I am going to let the much larger group of labour (anarcho-soc-syn-com) vote away my property, how the heck is that any different than what we have today?

I want a world where savages can be savages (or not) and civilized people can be free (or not) as they each choose.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

ThorsMitersaw — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:22:52 GMT

wombatron:

No problem. Life would be boring if everyone agreed with you 100% right off the bat

right off the WOMbat? hahaha

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

ThorsMitersaw — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:21:05 GMT

wombatron:
I'm actually leaning toward's Long's view in this matter, but that is actually more or less irrelevant, because people or communities can chosse to use Lockean, mutualist, Georgist, communist, or any other property rules with already-homesteaded property. Thus, it comes out to about the same thing.

People can choose statism as well. They can make up their own sytem of lottery of property or soemthign equally outlandish. But I see no reason to abide by the lotterys results. What people choose does not make it just. I am unconcerned with the state of the world as it is, or as some others woudl have it be (very much opposed to some views of THAT), only with as it ought to be.

In reply to some of the "communitatarian" comments, consensus and/or custom are nessecary in many cases; when natural law isn't specific, you can either fight over it or work it out, and the second option is always more productive. Common law, a kind of human law, is an example that most libertarians don't have a problem with. Human law can't contradict natural law, of course. It can only reduce it to apply to a certain situation.

no disagreement there, where we are speaking of things that are not discernable from natural law.

The main point of my posting this was to show that it is possible to have a society where people have different ideas of property than you do.

Well thats pretty much the state of the world as it is, but I do not much care for it. I suppose I am a bit intolerant. Again, I have no sympathy for the "savages" I describe from "region X".

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

majevska — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:26:22 GMT

liberty student:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the latter.

This is the key portion,

and so to “acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area”—so long as that means a majority consensus of the owners—without any compromise of, or loss of confidence n, their own No-Proviso Lockean principles.

I don't get it.

I think that perhaps what is meant is that it would be perfectly fine to use all sorts of non No-Proviso Lockean arrangements if that is what the owners consent to, without simultaneously believing that such property arrangements can be made without the owners' consent. If this is what he meant then he sure picked a very uneccessarilly confusing way of stating such; thus I'm not too confident it really is what he actually meant.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

wombatron — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:32:58 GMT

liberty student:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the latter.

What I meant is whether you felt that alternative property arrangements could be valid under a Lockean super-system.

liberty student:

This is the key portion,

and so to “acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area”—so long as that means a majority consensus of the owners—without any compromise of, or loss of confidence n, their own No-Proviso Lockean principles.

I don't get it.

My intrepretation of what he is saying is that as long as there is a general agreement of the members of a group, the group may adopt whatever property rules it pleases (provided that they are not in contradiction of natural law, of course). It is a consensus decision, so those that disagree are given voice; it's not a case of majoratarianism. If those in disagreement value being a part of the group more than seeing there own views on property upheld, than they will agree to follow the consensus rules. Otherwise, they will leave the group, which doesn't necessarily mean actually physically moving; a polycentric, interterritorial (there's a better word, but I can't think of it right now) system is easily imaginable. It will probably be easier, in the long run, for different towns or cities or what-have-you to have a minimum of different systems, though.

And once the consensus is in place, maintaining it is exactly analogous to a restrictive covenant; you agree to follow the rules before you purchase any property or join the group or whatever. Of course, there will be problems and conflicts, but that is true of anything in the real world, and arbitration systems would emerge to help solve that.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

liberty student — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:15:38 GMT

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the latter.

This is the key portion,

and so to “acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area”—so long as that means a majority consensus of the owners—without any compromise of, or loss of confidence n, their own No-Proviso Lockean principles.

I don't get it.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

Juan — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:12:41 GMT

What about this ?

"If the factory were located in an area where usufruct dominates, and virtually all the locals expect and act in accordance with usufruct, and the capitalist, representing the 'foreign' culture, was trying to pull a property coup, then he would probably rule in favor of the syndicalist workers"

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

wombatron — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:27 GMT

liberty student:
I read Long's reply and it's great until the last paragraph.

Do you not like the idea of collective homesteading, or the idea of acquiescing alternative property arrangements?

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

majevska — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:57:26 GMT

I actually find Carson to be spot on with regard to the idea that such a situation is quite likely should we eventually succeed in reaching a stateless society. The question of whether or not such a situation is desirable is different. Carson seems to think it is; I remain undecided at present. Then of course is the question of how to go about changing such a situation to bringabout a near-universal (in practice) agreement with regard to property rights. The most nonviolent means would likely yield a preferable outcome, methinks.

Then of course there is the question of property rights and whether or not Carson is right about the three basic types being equally questionable. I think Long wins on this point when debating within their mutual framework, but being something of a consequentialist, I don't hold the same premises.

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

Brainpolice — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:13:52 GMT

Nitroadict:

Brainpolice:

Back on topic, referring to my earlier comment, does anyone see any other similarities between the various stances onf property rights?

I think that a Rothbardian approach to property rights can delegitimize fuedalism and make a case in favor of the peasantry in 3rd world countries, and I don't think any of the socialists or commies would put up a fight on that one. I also don't think that any of the approaches to property rights in question entirely rejects all degrees or cases of private ownership over something, semantics and mutual misunderstandings not withstanding. Until the point that the self-proclaimed anti-propertarian gives up everything they own, including their clothing, I think it's safe to assume that they implicitly support some degree of property rights and that their claim to oppose property is based on a very strange and nonsensical definition of what property is.

I largely agree in the sense that I've spoken with various socialists/communists/etc. who, while opposing private property, have no problem owning their own property in of itself, which I viewed as whimsical but never really brought up.

I also forgot to mention that I think state claimed property is technically "squattable" (or "homesteadable").

Re: Carson on Property Metasystems

Brainpolice — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:36:55 GMT

wombatron:

liberty student:
Which was my point here. You can't vote the irrational into legitimacy.

No disagreement here. I am as much against anarchists who outright deny property as you are. Non-vulgar social anarchists will realize that what market anarchists mean by property is different from the current statist conception; and the vulgar ones aren't worth associating with.

Those types are basically just plain old commies.