remarks on property

Reply

ama gi Posted: Sat, May 23 2009 12:42 AM

rated by 0 users

SilentXtarian:

I've heard some so called libertarians support fascism-- only allowing land owners and property owners to vote. 

That works when every Tom, Dick and Harry owns property.  When property rights are acquired by homesteading, and property disputes are settled by an honest judiciary (juries of our peers), and everybody's properties are safe from confiscation, then economic and general fairness prevails.

The problem is, the Ahabs will always find ways to steal the Naboths' vineyards. They will do this by gradually forcing complicated "reforms" through the legislative process without anybody's watching.  Soon, you discover that land is accumulating in the hands of a few well-connected families; jobs are scarcer; you are in more debt, and interest rates are higher; your coinage is being debased.

Which brings me to the subject of anarchy.  A government only allows the faction inpower to force its political and economic agenda on the faction not in power.  It is perpetual robbery and strife.  A world of justice is a world without the State; and therefore, we must demand that the power of making decisions be and thoroughly dispersed among the people as possible.

Reply

MatthewWilliam replied on Sat, May 23 2009 12:47 AM

rated by 0 users

A few things:

1. What's the context of the original quote?

2. Silent appears to misunderstand the concept of fascism

3. Citation required for the dubious claim that libertarians support state controls of property via price controls, regulations, etc.

Reply

ama gi replied on Sat, May 23 2009 12:55 AM

rated by 0 users

MatthewWilliam:

1. What's the context of the original quote?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8021.aspx

MatthewWilliam:

3. Citation required for the dubious claim that libertarians support state controls of property via price controls, regulations, etc.

No libertarian supports state control of property.  Unfortunately, though, the government does control property; therefore it would be unwise to base voting rights on property ownership.

Reply

Danno replied on Sun, May 31 2009 1:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Not all libertarians support democracy - in fact, it horrifies many, if not most of us.  Mencken wrote a remarkable critique of democracy, _Notes on Democracy_, which I highly recommend. 

Danno, still lookin' for a good, concise definition of 'fascism'.

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Sun, May 31 2009 2:22 PM

rated by 0 users

Danno:

Not all libertarians support democracy - in fact, it horrifies many, if not most of us.  Mencken wrote a remarkable critique of democracy, _Notes on Democracy_, which I highly recommend. 

Danno, still lookin' for a good, concise definition of 'fascism'.

I oppose political democracy as well - however, it does not follow that I should support an aristocratic state that restricts voting to landed gentry, as if that is somehow a solution or a good thing in and of itself (or consistent in any sense). As a sheer matter of consistency, I would say that libertarians should oppose both. So my response to the initial concern is that no consistent libertarian favors what they are talking about in the first place.

Reply

Danno replied on Sun, May 31 2009 5:51 PM

rated by 0 users

Those who have real property, and thus an investment in the community (as well as enough brains to show that much success) being the ones who vote does not necessarily imply an aristocracy; a meritocracy, unless all land ownership is restricted to particular families.

As a libertarian, I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution, and recognize that my preferences can (and should) not be forced upon others.  A quiz in which a potential voter gets 10 of 100+ questions regarding current issues, with those questions chosen at random, seems potentially fair - but there could be serious problems with the administration of such a quiz, and potential of corruption would remain. 

Danno, whose consistency is closer to pudding than he likes.

Reply

liberty student replied on Sun, May 31 2009 6:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Brainpolice:

I oppose political democracy as well

All democracy is political, that is to say, all democracy is based around the control of life and property.

Some folks think that democracy can be used for decision making.  It is unnecessary to vote when everyone can participate or not participate at their own discretion.

That notion that the market functions "democratically" is a misrepresentation.  People individually vote with their dollars, but they are not tied to the majority decision of the market.  In this sense, the vote is non-binding.

Those who would create social orders based on democracy (communes and councils) are not employing a free market unless they allow that the minority doesn't have to participate in a majority decision.

Reply

Harry Felker replied on Wed, Jun 3 2009 3:31 AM

rated by 0 users

Danno:

still lookin' for a good, concise definition of 'fascism'.

I like Merriam-Webster...

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

#1 is the most objective...

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Wed, Jun 3 2009 9:43 AM

rated by 0 users

All democracy is political, that is to say, all democracy is based around the control of life and property.

This just leads to a semantic circle jerk over how the word "democracy" is used. You very well know that by "political democracy" I refer to voting processes in states, which I don't support.

It is unnecessary to vote when everyone can participate or not participate at their own discretion.

Yea, that's called "participatory democracy". Rothbard praised it in the 70's.

That notion that the market functions "democratically" is a misrepresentation. 

It comes from none other than Mises, who was trying to make the point that the market is *participatory*.

People individually vote with their dollars, but they are not tied to the majority decision of the market.  In this sense, the vote is non-binding.

Which is precisely why it's a form of participatory democracy.

Those who would create social orders based on democracy (communes and councils) are not employing a free market unless they allow that the minority doesn't have to participate in a majority decision.

No shit, Sherlock. That's why there's a difference between participatory democracy/consensus decision-making and majoritarianism - a distinction not always grasped by libertarians.