Is Foreclosure Resistance Libertarian?
Here we have a left-libertarian hailing the leftist group ACORN's campaign promoting civil disobedience to resist home foreclosures--that is, they support mortgagees squatting on property owned by the mortgage holder. Argues our left-libertarian:
"This is a case where real property rights don't agree with property titles as recognized by the state. The banksters are a government-backed cartel whose profits principally accrue from their illegitimate (government granted) monopoly privileges -- so claims that the homes in question are property of the banks have no merit in terms of libertarian theory. Resistance to foreclosures is thus fully libertarian. Please support ACORNs foreclosure resistance campaign."
And what about renters? Renting is economically similar to holding a mortgage. Should deadbeat renters be able to squat in their apartments, and tell the evil, capitalistic slumlords "go away, you're not the real owner"? If not, then I guess banks ought to switch from granting mortgages to just doing lease-to-own contracts. Recall also the recent case of left-libertarians cheering on laid-off union factory workers in Chicago trespassing on private property. Should the recently laid-off lawyers squat in their law firms' offices?
This also reminds of Ayn Rand's view that the Western oil companies were the "real" owners of the Arabian oil fields, even though they did the developing under an agreement with the Arab host states--as I recall, Rand wrote in The Objectivist Newsletter that Arabs, like Palestinians, were barbarians, and had no rights, including property rights (I cannot find this -- if anyone has the exact source and quote, please send to me; incidentally, I discuss the international law of the Arab oil expropriations in detail in my book International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2005), ch. 5, Sec. A; also, Introdution, and ch. 4). After all, as Objectivist Robert Tracinski writes, "The Saudis did not create their oil fields. The oil was discovered and drilled for by American, British and French oil companies. These firms were the rightful owners of the oil, and until the 1950s, their rights were mostly respected. [] The Arab chieftains who ruled the region had no idea the oil was there and no idea what to use it for; they were still riding camels."
Nevermind the existence of a contract. Nevermind the inconsistency between this view and Rand's view that the US government is under no obligation to rescue American citizens who are harmed or jailed while visiting communist regimes, because if you do that, you take your chances.
Rand basically felt that the Arab states were primitive and "bad"; therefore the good, heroic, individualist Western oil companies are the "true" owners. Likewise, our left-libertarians are arguing that because the banks are illegitimate and have no proper title to homes they hold mortgages on, the current possessor is the "true" owner. Now, no doubt the banksters and Arab states all have unclean hands. But why does the defect in the claims of such actors mean the current possessor of property own it? In the case of homes, why is the renter or mortgagee the "owner"? Why are workers the owner of the factory? Why are the oil companies the owners of the oil fields? After all, when you develop an oil field with the permission of the surface owner, the surface owner retains mineral rights. In the case of a home currently occupied by a deadbeat Democrat or Republican, why is that statist the owner, even if the banks aren't? Maybe the employed taxpayers are. Maybe the Iraqi citizens with dead family members obliterated by US war supported by typical US homeowners have a better claim to these assets than the possessor has.
Update: Karen De Coster's excellent LRC post, "Rothbardians" For ACORN and Against Private Property.
Also: Justin Milling points me to this Ayn Rand interview with Phil Donahue, where Rand argues that American oil companies are the legitimate owners of Arabian oil fields (starting at about 8:15 in part 2; continuing on to part 3, below). Rand says, of the Arabian countries who nationalized oil concessions previously granted to Western oil companies, "They have no right to their soil if they do nothing with it. Well, rights are not involved in those primitive societies. But they make a deal with us, they want to bring us in to develop their oil, and then they try to exploit and to literally murder us by means of that oil. That is an unforgivable crime."
Comments (98)
AJ Witoslawski
Didn't Arab states illegally seize oil fields?
Published: March 2, 2009 5:28 PM
Franklin Harris
"This also reminds of Ayn Rand's view that the Western oil companies were the "real" owners of the Arabian oil fields, even though they did the developing under an agreement with the Arab host states--as I recall, Rand wrote in The Objectivist Newsletter that Arabs, like Palestinians, were barbarians, and had no rights,
including property rights (I cannot find this -- if anyone has the exact source and quote, please send to me)."
As you have argued, "intellectual property" rights always conflict with real property rights, and I see this, once again, as an issue with Rand's theory of all property rights being the "product of man's mind." (She reduces, in effect, all property to intellectual property.) By that line of reasoning, the host countries never owned the oil reserves in the first place because they never exploited them. The contract allowing Western oil companies to exploit those reserves, then, was illegitimate from the outset because the Western companies created the property rights by exercising entrepreneurial discovery and deploying capital (including intellectual). Before the Western companies came along, those oil reserves were still in a state of nature, according to Rand's view of property rights.
Published: March 2, 2009 5:30 PM
Mike
Stephan Kinsella:Left Libertarians
as
Silas Barta:Stephan Kinsella
Published: March 2, 2009 5:43 PM
Mike
Question for Stephan:
Would you conclude, then, that a state can be a legitimate owner, in certain circumstances?
Published: March 2, 2009 5:45 PM
(8?»
"Left" libertarians???
Why do people insist upon polarizing themselves into incoherence? Do they not recognize that "The Left" & "The Right" both have P.O.V.s that can be seen as libertarian and/or statist, and that there is never a clear choice between the two incoherent ideologies, other than to fall into a trap?
It's real simple folks, two wrongs NEVER make a right, only a fight, which is why the option is offered to begin with. Banksters can provide the rationalization for such a stance, but it does nothing to negate the crime inherent in the reaction.
Nothing quite like the power of divide & conquer to drive people from the coherence of true liberty into the incoherence that is statism, the idea that everyone can hold a gun to everyone else's head in order to make everything better.
Published: March 2, 2009 6:01 PM
newson
to disrespect, or advocate disrespecting valid contracts is to disqualify yourself as a libertarian; you then join the might-is-right mob.
today's vocal mortgage squatters are the wannabe property millionaires (silent) of yesterday.
kinsella vs. "atlas shrugged" - wow, this is going to be a real slug-fest, eye-gouges and groin-punches. lucky it's a caged fight.
Published: March 2, 2009 6:29 PM
Pat
In my humble opinion, Ayn Rand's point would be correct if the land indeed was either given to the oil companies by the owners (in this case, the Arab chieftains) or acquired through homesteading. In the former, it would depend on what kind of contract both sides have agreed. In case of transfering land ownership to the oil companies, then naturally the oil companies would be the land owners.
So, the real questions are the concept of property rights in the Middle East and the contracts between the oil companies and the middle eastern tribes. Somehow, I don't think it was as clear cut as Ayn Rand's point would imply. But going back to the foreclosure resistance, I say let's see the fine prints on the contracts. The conundrum is that we are not dealing with a libertarian society. We are dealing with a progressive (e.g: American liberalism) society. So the question itself is somewhat moot.
Published: March 2, 2009 6:38 PM
Cork
Left-libertarianism has gradually descended into outright lunacy. Over at one of their forums, they are now condemning a pro free market, anti-state comic book by Irwin Schiff (Peter Schiff's father-- who was incarcerated for not paying taxes), and making clear that he is "NOT an ally," because he's a "capitalist" who "supports hierarchy."
Presumably he would reside in the same gulag under a left-libertarian regime. The new motto of the LLs: against all hierarchy, except the state!
Published: March 2, 2009 6:42 PM
Stephan Kinsella
AJ Witoslawski:
"Didn't Arab states illegally seize oil fields?"
Depends on what you mean. My book (which I've amended the main post to include a reference to) discusses the issue of international illegality in detail; but even if it was illegal, that is fairly irrelevant for our purposes. No sane libertarian would say that the violation of international law by one socialist, criminal state gives another socialist, criminal state the right to invade. Nor does it mean the victim owns the oil fields, or ever did. IMO the best view is the citizens of the Arab state really own the oil fields. Not the state; not the foreign party who did a job. Their claim is one for breach of contract, for which they can seek monetary damages (but even this is weak--who pays it, really, but the victimized taxpaying citizens of the host state).
Franklin Harris:
"As you have argued, "intellectual property" rights always conflict with real property rights, and I see this, once again, as an issue with Rand's theory of all property rights being the "product of man's mind." (She reduces, in effect, all property to intellectual property.) By that line of reasoning, the host countries never owned the oil reserves in the first place because they never exploited them. The contract allowing Western oil companies to exploit those reserves, then, was illegitimate from the outset because the Western companies created the property rights by exercising entrepreneurial discovery and deploying capital (including intellectual). Before the Western companies came along, those oil reserves were still in a state of nature, according to Rand's view of property rights."
Maybe. But this would follow a particularly uninformed view of the way property rights work out in practice. For instance no doubt some surface rights were needed to do the exploring. In the West, this is done under a lease with the surface owner. I'd say the surface was owned by the citizens of the country in question, not the outside corporation.
Mike:
"Stephan Kinsella:Left Libertarians
as
Silas Barta:Stephan Kinsella"
Oh, what a low blow! I hope my arguments are not as weak as that! :)
"Would you conclude, then, that a state can be a legitimate owner, in certain circumstances?"
No. Just because the state is illegitimate does not mean the current possessor is owner. Imagine the state takes my house, or takes my money and buys the house, and then rents it to someone. The state is not the owner, but is the renter? Why? I'd say the original, expropriated owner, or the expropriated taxpayer, has a better claim to the house than whoever happens to be its current occupant.
(8?»:
I quite agree-the left-libertarian/right-libertarian framework is utterly incoherent and useless. You only find the soi-disant left-libertarians using this.
newson:
"to disrespect, or advocate disrespecting valid contracts is to disqualify yourself as a libertarian; you then join the might-is-right mob.
today's vocal mortgage squatters are the wannabe property millionaires (silent) of yesterday."
Great point.
Published: March 2, 2009 6:50 PM
John
I am really on the fence about this. I lean towards advocating the sanctity of contracts, which would be against these squatters, but I'm really torn, for the following reasons.
What Brad Spangler and ACORN's left-libertarian cheerleaders are saying is, basically, that owing anything to a State-sponsored enterprise, which is basically owing something to the State, is illegitimate and therefore you can absolve that contract on your own and renegue on the contract and take what property you can and pay what you wish for it. That holds some water. As with income taxes, for instance. If you had an opportunity to steal your exact lifetime's sum of income taxes, which would never be noticed by the State and the State would never prosecute you or increase income tax rates on others to compensate or anything like that, or you could hack into the IRS's computers and erase your information so you'd never have to pay a single cent in taxes, that would be 100% legitimate. Good for you, I'd say. But what about breaking into the Treasury and taking back your life's share of income taxes, plus several thousand or million dollars? Or hacking into their computer system to give you thousands or millions more in refunds than you were due? "It might not be my money," you'd say, "but it sure as hell isn't the State's! Sure, it belongs to other people who were legitimately stolen from and legitimately deserve their 'refund' as much as I do—but I'm not giving a dime to anyone else."
Another scenario: You get a mortgage with the bank, you hole up in your home and secure your property with all the defenses and weaponry you can manage, and as soon as the bank comes asking for its first monthly payment, you defend yourself and your property with all the resistance and firepower you have. Your plan all along was to trick the bank and the real estate company into giving you the property and then go to war with anyone who comes asking for payment for it.
That seems identical in princple to the ACORN squatting scenario. "I might have lied or cheated, but it isn't theirs, so I'm claiming it."
Is taking over a government building, kicking all the government bureaucrats out, and establishing your own agorist business there legitimate from a libertarian perspective? I'd say so, as long as no one was hurt or had their rightful (?) property damaged in the process. If the State put a bunch of people to work in building houses to sell, and you came and squatted in one and took it over, saying, "Many of my tax dollars were spent paying those laborers and buying those materials; the State has no more legitimate claim to the house than it had to my income; I'm taking this as my rightful property. Anyone else who wants to do the same is perfectly justified in doing so." I would be unable to argue with you.
The State's property doesn't belong to the State, it belongs to the people. (Which people? How much to each? I don't know...)
Is taking a home that you promised to pay for but didn't, from a bank that is technically a private company but increasingly socialist or fascist (and therefore has no legitimate claim to a lot of its money and monopoly privileges and modus operandi), legitimate?
The bank's employees and other people (maybe real estate company employees) don't necessarily deserve to get screwed over by your reneging on your contract. It isn't just okay to steal from Statists because their State steals from you (all of us). Stealing from the State and stealing from Statists are different things, at least in degree if not in kind.
I don't know if that added anything, I hope it did... I'm still torn...
Published: March 2, 2009 7:04 PM
Gil
Interesting thoughts Johns.
Published: March 2, 2009 7:23 PM
Mike
"I'd say the original, expropriated owner, or the expropriated taxpayer, has a better claim to the house than whoever happens to be its current occupant."
I'd agree, but certainly you'd concede that the current occupant at least has a *better* claim on it than the state, no? And that if the state makes manifestly clear that is has no intention of returning the property to the rightful owner, it is at least better off in the hands of the party that is more degrees removed from the aggression?
Published: March 2, 2009 7:37 PM
Mike
"Is taking a home that you promised to pay for but didn't, from a bank that is technically a private company but increasingly socialist or fascist (and therefore has no legitimate claim to a lot of its money and monopoly privileges and modus operandi), legitimate? "
A bank is not a "technically" private company, it is a nominally private one, at least those banks closely entwined with the federal reserve are.
I agree, this is a gray area, and I don't think you can lay down any all-encompassing rule regarding which contracts with banks are legitimate. If you have a loan with Citibank, which is all but nationalized at this point, you may be justified in ignoring the contract. A loan with a local bank or credit union, however, would be much harder to justify nullifying.
Published: March 2, 2009 7:42 PM
Marc Sheffner
I'm a neophyte in this field. I recently came across a website that outlines the theory of natural property. How does this jive with libertarianism?
This webpage contains a discussion of the concept of "natural property" by John Locke, Robert Lefevre and others. It includes the following points about Mineral Rights: "Mineral rights are usually considered to be attached to the land overlying them. Under today's coercive property law, the recognized owner of land is automatically considered to own the minerals under his property, unless he has sold them to someone else. This approach appears to be NATURAL PROPERTY, but is in fact STATE PROPERTY under current laws. This is because the minerals have not necessarily been appropriated, defined, used, or otherwise protected by the landowner.
Until someone expends labor discovering or removing minerals under his (or other) land from the use of others, those resources are unowned. Once labor is expended, however, the resource can be legitimately claimed. Although access to the land above may be required to develop such a resource, the resource is not owned by the landowner until he expends labor to define, develop, or exclude it from others. Meanwhile, if an adjacent landowner can develop the resource under the land without infringing upon the landowner's existing use of his land, the mineral resource under one person's property may legitimately become owned by another, without the first landowner's permission. If the first landowner has taken measure to exclude others from developing his resource, such as drilling or by placing notices at his property boundary of his intent to PROTECT OR DEVELOP the resource, then these laborious human actions may prevent the legitimate development of the resource by others. However, the effectiveness of such efforts may be severely tested in the marketplace of ideas. Putting up a few signs is a small effort to exclude large amounts of mineral resources from development by others. If the signs don't work, then the sign owner may have to invest significant additional resources to ensure that the resource is not developed. This may lead to a conflict: The sign owner says, "I was here first; it's my property!" The adjacent landowner says, "No, you haven't spent enough labor to establish a property right." Let's assume that these conflicting views are honestly held by both parties, acting in good faith. Under STATE PROPERTY, the parties would turn to the State to resolve the conflict at taxpayer expense. Under NATURAL PROPERTY, they would have to resolve the dispute themselves."
Published: March 2, 2009 7:52 PM
newson
mike says:
"If you have a loan with Citibank, which is all but nationalized at this point, you may be justified in ignoring the contract."
faust: if you choose to lie with the devil, you're going to have to ####. it's part of the compact.
Published: March 2, 2009 8:12 PM
Peter
Indeed, here's Murray Rothbard on oil fields:
(Ethics of Liberty, ch 11)
Published: March 2, 2009 8:19 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Mike:
Yes, a better claim than the state. but the state never relinquishes its title. And if it does, that doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a better claim than the happenstance occupant.
Further, the "banks" and landlords are not "the state", no offense left-libertarian haters of anything that rhymes with "corporate."
I agree, this is a gray area, and I don't think you can lay down any all-encompassing rule regarding which contracts with banks are legitimate. If you have a loan with Citibank, which is all but nationalized at this point, you may be justified in ignoring the contract. A loan with a local bank or credit union, however, would be much harder to justify nullifying.
But I bet you any deadbeat libertarians can think of a way to do it!
Peter:
The flaw in this view is viewing state-owned property as "unowned." If it's been appropriated and used, it's not unowned. It's got an owner. It's not the state, it's not necessarily the state's renters or aiders-abettors (who after all are working with the state), it may be someone else who has a stronger claim on the property or on the state's nominally-owned property. No offense, Exxon-worshipping Randians.
Published: March 2, 2009 8:25 PM
Max Zorin
We can't ignore the fact that but for the illegitimate, state-sponsored bank, the (supposedly more) legitimate possessor would have no rights in the property whatsoever. It seems strange, then, to conclude that the bank is somehow "more" illegitimate than the possessor. If you use a state-sponsored entity to gain access to property (which the possessor here has obviously done), aren't you just as illegitimate?
The bank is illegitimate. The possessor used that bank to gain access to property. In that situation, I side with the contract between those two parties.
Published: March 2, 2009 8:34 PM
John
"A bank is not a "technically" private company, it is a nominally private one, at least those banks closely entwined with the federal reserve are."
Yes, you're right, "nominally" is the right word, not technically. They are technically a corporate-State partnership or a government-sponsored enterprise. I transcribed my thoughts too fast, as should be obvious to all...
Published: March 2, 2009 10:00 PM
FTG
From the Left "libertarian":
"This is a case where real property rights don't agree with property titles as recognized by the state. The "banksters" are a government-backed cartel whose profits principally accrue from their illegitimate (government granted) monopoly privileges."
This is a case of having your cake and eating it, too. It does not matter that the bank is a "monopoly cartel" - the exchange of titles went first from the original possessor of the home towards the bank, so the bank owns the property under the definition of property rights. The borrower agreed to the terms and conditions of the bank in order to obtain a stake in the home, but the good still belongs to the bank. There is a clear contractual agreement between borrower and bank or mortgage provider.
So, you cannot then repudiate the contract on the argument that the bank is not the possessor of the good in a "valid" way, since the borrower originally considered the agreement VALID (!), since he accepted the home in exchange for his promise of payment.
Under the same argument as forwarded by the left "libertarian", a bank can also repudiate an agreement alleging the home dweller does not have a VALID stake on the home for not being the possessor, even if he kept his end of the agreement, and simply expel him from the dwelling.
Published: March 2, 2009 10:16 PM
Inquisitor
Do these people really own the houses they bought on credit? No. Do the banks? Debatable, and the fact that they are party to the government's counterfeiting operation seriously damages the notion that they should have any control in this situation. As for the government? It can rot, it certainly has no claim to the houses - it has no claim to anything. I would say those damaged by inflation have primary say in this case, but it'd be so utterly impractical to determine who is due what, that I can't really think of a fair, convenient way of resolving this.
Published: March 2, 2009 10:35 PM
James
I think FTG is right, these people would be estopped from claiming that the contract is invalid because the bank is criminal, because they accepted the banks legitimacy earlier.
By the way, have you ever noticed that left-libertarians rightly attack corporations for being in bed with the government but give the poor a pass when it comes to welfare?
Published: March 2, 2009 10:37 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
"our left-libertarians are arguing that because the banks are illegitimate and have no proper title to homes they hold mortgages on, the current possessor is the 'true' owner."
It wasn't so long ago that you thought I was crazy for characterizing Rothbard's defense of the Lockean theory of property in land as not very well done. Now you're defending statist claims of "ownership" based on nothing more substantial than "I have a piece of paper notarized by a bureaucrat, and the phone number to call in other bureaucrats with guns" against ... the Lockean theory of property in land! Apparently Rothbard didn't do a very good job after all, since he wasn't able to convince you.
Banks (as they actually exist) and corporations (period) are creatures of the state and nothing but creatures of the state. Their existence is based solely on the recognition of the state, and their economic operations are privileged for no other reason than that the state commands they be privileged.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that no one who recognizes the state fiat claim of the bank as superior to the legitimate homestead claim of the "squatter" is a libertarian, but it's pretty obvious that no one who recognizes the state fiat claim of the bank as superior to the legitimate homestead claim of the "squatter" subscribes to Locke's theory of property in land, or Rothbard's defense thereof.
Published: March 2, 2009 11:29 PM
RWW
"Left libertarian" is an oxymoron.
Published: March 2, 2009 11:31 PM
Andrew Taranto
I wonder if the ACORN case could be strengthened by appealing (unlikely!) to the thesis that fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent. The charge that "the banking cartel is illegitimate on account of state-granted monopoly privilege" seems about as "merely rhetorical" as you can get, at least for this context.
My gut says that would be a non-starter, though. If the banking system were suddenly deemed fraudulent and liquidated at the stroke of a pen, the banks' depositors would still need to be made whole, would they not? THEY would seem to have the strongest claim to bank-held properties from foreclosure: that would seem to supersede any homesteading claim a squatter might make.
(I don't exactly adhere to the fractional-reserve-as-fraud view; I find it compelling, but not quite convincing.)
BTW, is there by chance a legal term for borrowing with intent to default?
Published: March 2, 2009 11:52 PM
integraldoctor
If homesteading is the issue, where might a builder fit in to the mix here? Does sleeping some place or moving your stuff into a house qualify as homesteading (does it improve the land/property)?
Published: March 2, 2009 11:56 PM
Gil
Golly! If most property is held by the government and partners of the government (big and small) then practically the whole world is up for grabs! Heck! Come to think of it how could imperialism be a crime of any sorts? A person has to no right to defend property which isn't their from someone who intends to make claim to the 'unowned' property.
P.S. This dispels claims that anarcho-Capitalists could abide by a commune of anarcho-Communists. Since Communists don't personally, privately own property then there's nothing stopping an anarcho-Capitalist from swaggering into the commune, homesteading a piece and then fend off any claim by the anarcho-Communists that he is 'stealing' 'their' land.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:14 AM
Gil
Golly! If most property is held by the government and partners of the government (big and small) then practically the whole world is up for grabs! Heck! Come to think of it how could imperialism be a crime of any sorts? A person has to no right to defend property which isn't their from someone who intends to make claim to the 'unowned' property.
P.S. This dispels claims that anarcho-Capitalists could abide by a commune of anarcho-Communists. Since Communists don't personally, privately own property then there's nothing stopping an anarcho-Capitalist from swaggering into the commune, homesteading a piece and then fend off any claim by the anarcho-Communists that he is 'stealing' 'their' land.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:14 AM
Haas
To even put "left" and "libertarian" together is a disgrace...contracts matter and in the case of many banks they were (mostly) private entities and whatever dealings they had with the state should not negate the contract no matter what ideology you subscribe to...how can someone expect to live in a house without paying for it?? if you don't own the house because you can't pay for it then that is your problem...if we start talking about getting our money back through stealing a house...then this website is over.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:19 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Thomas L. Knapp:
I've criticized this aspect of Rothbard before--e.g., in his too-mechanistic implicit theory of causation in his view that incitement is never proximate cause, in my article on causation.
And I did not defend the banks (though they are not "the state"); I said that even if the bank is not "the owner" that doesn't mean the current deadbeat occupant is.
Apparently anti-capitalists simply do not realize the full context. Suppose you wipe out, in your anti-rich glee, all the banks and lenders. Okay fine. Suppose you make it clear that no lender can ever collect on a mortgage. Okay, fine. You stop lending in its tracks. You push us back towards a hand-to-mouth, agrarian society, where things are grown locally, where the division of labor is weakened, where workers are not as alienated from their labor by mechanical repetition of mindless.... wait, I see what you did there!
Hey, if it lets you get out of the guild of skipping out on your mortgage payments, good on ya, mate.
Andrew Taranto:
I think your gut is right. The quite common sensical perspective is that someone who puts 10% down on an expensive home doesn't get to keep it just because they can point fingers at the mortgage holder.
integraldoctor:
Only for libertarian moochers.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:36 AM
scineram
Everyone conveniently forgets, primarily left libertarians, that criminals have property rights too. In things acquired legitimately. I.e. banks with mortgage contracts.
Published: March 3, 2009 4:19 AM
geoih
Sounds like a lot of democratic (small d) socialism to me. I think Hoppe was right: don't tyr to court or placate "left libertarians".
Published: March 3, 2009 5:47 AM
ktibuk
Stephan said,
"IMO the best view is the citizens of the Arab state really own the oil fields."
Stephan if this is your opinion then you are a socialist. Why are you fighting yourself and get agitated when you are called what your are, I will never understand.
Published: March 3, 2009 6:16 AM
Gil
So lefties are trying to steal another l-word-ism?
Published: March 3, 2009 6:39 AM
Stephan Kinsella
The left-libertarians, in their zeal to appeal to Joe Sixpack by endorsing their self-serving greed to "get a free house," are latching onto a cobbled-together, poorly thought out variation of the "unclean hands doctrine". They seem to be arguing: a bank is part of the state, and thus as criminal as the state, and thus as unable to own property; since it has no claim on the house, the mortgage is "null and void," and so is the debt. So magically, the current deadbeat occupant is its owner. Nice for him! Especially if you time it right, this is a good way to get a free house--unless you want to take out a mortgage to get a house the month after the left-libertarian-endorsed wave of looting has happened, and you'll be out of luck since the entire mortgage-backed lending practice will have disappeared.
Are all banks really thoroughly criminal? Why? Because they use fractional reserves? Because some are taking money from the state? What about the tellers and employees--are they all aiding and abetting, and thus guilty too? What about most American citizens, including mortgagees--they have money "in" the bank. Are we all criminal aiders and abettors? By this logic, none of us has clean hands; even mortgagees are aiding and abetting: they have been paying interest to the bank on the loan.
And even if we view the bank as so criminal they don't have any title to the house, why is the current possessor the owner? "Owning" a house subject to a big loan and mortgage is economically similar to renting the house from a landlord--so does this mean that if the landlord has "unclean hands" then the current renter can stop making rent and squat? After all, he is owed restitution! I'm sure that people who want to get something for nothing can easily cobble together a rationale why they are "owed" it. I've heard many welfare bums talk this way, in fact.
You left-libs do realize that if we do this mass looting, then all mortgage lending stops. So now in an arbitrary slice of time a small group of deadbeat borrowers gets a windfall: those who paid off their mortgages are suckers; those who want to buy a house with a loan are now out of luck, since all lenders know that mortgages will no longer be respected--but what the heck, let's let the current deadbeats get a one time "loot all you can carry" shopping spree. Call me "vulgar," but I find this call for a one-time looting spree a bit disgusting.
Published: March 3, 2009 7:33 AM
redshirt
Agree with haas, rww, geoih, and max. People love to hijack ideas and names for their own cause. Sound money, free markets and rule of law go hand-in-hand. Mob rule does not figure in!
It seems clear that you can't have it both ways. In reality every contract will have some distortion caused by government interference, even if it is just in the pricing. Does that null everything? No, both parties whether they are privy or ignorant of the government presence in the process, will need to follow the rule of law and comply with the contract. Otherwise there is no meaningful way to enter into any agreement.
No one forced these folks to take the mortgages. If they were somehow defrauded, the best they could hope for would be a fair third party reassessment of the agreement. If they could not afford that either, they should have no claim to the property.
The rule of law is fundamental to a free society, otherwise everyone can just take what they want.
Published: March 3, 2009 7:41 AM
Native American Left-Libertarian
Not only are the Left-libertarians correct and libertarian, and the right-wing "libertarians" here wrong and statist, but some of the left-libertarians don't go far enough!!
According to Kevin Carson's work -- which has surpassed Mises and Rothbard as cannon due to Carson's finding the cosmic nexus between Austrianism and Marxism -- the TRUE property owners are those whose capital was stolen by the state.
This means that me...as a Native American...really owns your house. My land was stolen by the white criminal banksters starting in the 1600s. Your house and Wal-Mart are MY property.
Further, my parents and ancestors were working class folks. Just folks. And I am working class. I never graduated high-school and have worked in fast-food for my entire life. What does this mean? It means that Rothbard and Mises would agree (through the authority of Kevin Carson) that my capital was illegally appropriated by Monopoly Capital. Your house and Wal-Mart are MY property.
Published: March 3, 2009 7:54 AM
Native American Left-Libertarian
"By this logic, none of us has unclean hands; "
You are getting WARMER, Kinsella!!!
None of us do. None. We are all guilty of the original sin, all of us, and the only way to forgiveness for all of us is normal state-socialism... which you libertarians must support due to your GUILT.
Are we lefties smart or what?
Published: March 3, 2009 8:01 AM
Native American Left-Libertarian
"Banks (as they actually exist) and corporations (period) are creatures of the state and nothing but creatures of the state. Their existence is based solely on the recognition of the state,"
Indeed. That is why I never deposit any money in a bank. It's far easier to squat, homestead a house, and then sell it after the Revolution. Much better rate of return.
Don't forget the "depositors" in all banks are usually employees of corporations, or customers, or lenders, or stockholders. Many of the stockholders are shareholders of the banks, which makes them banksters (ever see a 401K without bank stocks?)
Hence, the "depositors" of a bank are creatures of the state as well, and their deposits (via the funding of the original mortgage) is up for grabs too.
It's all homesteading. Rothbard said homestading is OK. Why are you vulgar-types disagreeing with Rothbard?
Published: March 3, 2009 8:16 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
The term "left libertarian" sounds like an oxymoron to me. So I'm wondering just what it means.
Is it a leftist who is assuming some of the outward forms of the libertarian in order to sucker libertarians into supporting some socialist scheme?
Is it a confused libertarian who thinks that the way to advance libertarianism is to suck up to the Democrat party?
Or perhaps it's just a practical joke?
Published: March 3, 2009 8:18 AM
Brainpolice
It's nice to see that Stefan Kinsella continues to misunderstand and misrepresent left-libertarianism.
I also love how some of the commentators appear to conflate libertarianism with "the right".
Published: March 3, 2009 8:48 AM
Brainpolice
Enjoy Every Sandwich: none of the above. It has nothing to do with the Democratic Party or state-socialism.
Published: March 3, 2009 8:49 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Brainpolice: okay, then what is the correct definition? I do not understand how anyone can be both "left" (or "right") and "libertarian" simultaneously.
Published: March 3, 2009 9:04 AM
Phil72
85% of mortgage documents contain major Truth in Lending Act, RESPA, and Predatory Lending and Real Estate/Mortgage Fraud violations. Mistakes such as these can compel banks to work with you as opposed to foreclosure. Visit http://www.advocateforyourhome.net for affordable forensic loan audits. Our professionals will conduct a thorough review of your loan documentation to locate whatever problems exist.
Published: March 3, 2009 9:57 AM
No snark..honest question
If left-libertarians subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value...
Shouldn't the house belong to those who spent the labor to originally build the house?
Home-builders, contractors and subcontractors unite!
Published: March 3, 2009 10:43 AM
anon
I, for one, am interested in hearing more about what Phil72 has to say.
Published: March 3, 2009 11:35 AM
ThomasPaine
Marc Sheffner wrote:
"This webpage contains a discussion of the concept of "natural property" by John Locke, Robert Lefevre and others. It includes the following points about Mineral Rights: "Mineral rights are usually considered to be attached to the land overlying them. Under today's coercive property law, the recognized owner of land is automatically considered to own the minerals under his property, unless he has sold them to someone else. This approach appears to be NATURAL PROPERTY, but is in fact STATE PROPERTY under current laws. This is because the minerals have not necessarily been appropriated, defined, used, or otherwise protected by the landowner.
Until someone expends labor discovering or removing minerals under his (or other) land from the use of others, those resources are unowned. Once labor is expended, however, the resource can be legitimately claimed."
I reply:
Locke didn't believe everything that pre-existed human labor was "unowned"...he specifically said it was "owned in common" and he said one could appropriate via the mixing of one's labor but only if "enough and as good were left in common for others". The test being whether or not economic rent attached to the location in question which measures the extent to which those who have an individual equal access opportunity right claim are being economically disadvantaged by the exclusive use.
Native American wrote:
"According to Kevin Carson's work -- which has surpassed Mises and Rothbard as cannon due to Carson's finding the cosmic nexus between Austrianism and Marxism -- the TRUE property owners are those whose capital was stolen by the state."
I reply:
You are confusing the terms capital and land.
Capital (like building) is owned by whomever labored to produce it or by whomever offered and wages were accepted as fair trade under absolute voluntary conditions.
A location (your term "land") is not produced by human labor but when exclusively used beyond Locke's proviso becomes the vehicle to make an unjust claim on the human labor (wages) of those you exclude.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:07 PM
geoih
Quote from Native American Left-Libertarian: "This means that me...as a Native American...really owns your house. My land was stolen by the white criminal banksters starting in the 1600s. Your house and Wal-Mart are MY property."
Wow, you rightly own the whole continent? Do you think you could point to your specific ancestor and where they actually lived in the 1600's? Your ancestors invaded this continent at some point in the past, the same as any other present inhabitant. Why is your claim any more legitimate than anybody else's?
You're speaking in the collective, which is a fiction of your imagination. Tell us exactly what your property claim is and maybe we'll agree with you, but I doubt you'll get anybody but a socialist to agree with such a broad collectivist claim as owning a whole continent.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:24 PM
Native American Left-Libertarian
"Tell us exactly what your property claim is and maybe we'll agree with you"
But I don't need to. I only need to prove YOUR claims are illegitimate for me to homestead the un-owned property you falsely claim.
All capital produced on land stolen from Native Americans is by definition stolen property, since the white-man stole our means.
All capital created from Black Slavery, and hence most capital produced since, is Stolen Capital.
Capital "owned" by a corporation is Stolen Capital, since ALL corps are state-creations. All cash flows from said stolen-capital (salaries, wages, interest, dividend) is stolen too. Plus everything this stolen property buys (such as the house you illegitimately claim).
The Workers have a right to take their property back.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:35 PM
Roderick T. Long
Whether you agree or disagree with Brad Spangler, there's no mystery as to what part of Rothbardian property theory he's relying on; it's Rothbard's "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle," starting on p. 3 of this:
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1969/1969_06_15.pdf
(commenting on Karl Hess's "Where Are the Specifics?" starting on p. 2.)
Published: March 3, 2009 12:44 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
Just to clarify:
I'm not necessarily of the opinion that the ACORN squatter has a valid homesteading claim on the house in question.
I was just throwing back on Kinsella that he's unduly crediting a state-backed claim, immediately assuming that all competing claims are being lodged by "deadbeats," and sniffing at a theory (the Lockean theory of property in land) that he previously berated me for questioning and for saying that Rothbard hadn't defended very well.
"Left-libertarian" is defined in any number of ways by any number of people (as is "libertarian"). I call myself a "left-libertarian" because I support full, complete laissez-faire, the free market, not "capitalism," which was coined by Thackeray to denote a "mixed, regulated industrial economy" and popularized by Marx as the stage of socialist economic development preceding the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
To me the main feature of "left-libertarianism" is that it rejects the legitimacy of state involvement in the market completely, including through the instrumentality of the "corporation," an institution which could not conceivably exist in a free market, its sole distinguishing features being its state-bestowed privileges ("corporate personhood" and limited liability).
As far as the distinction between "left-libertarians" and "vulgar libertarians," treatment of corporate cartels as inherently legitimate even given their state-bestowed privileges, and labor cartels (unions) as illegitimate even sans any state-bestowed privileges, is a good identification marker for the latter.
Published: March 3, 2009 12:44 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Roderick T. Long: thanks for the link to Rothbard.
I have always disagreed with those libertarians who characterize state property as "unowned." It makes a difference: if it's unowned then the current happenstance possessor can be viewed as the homesteader-owner. But if it's owned, not by the state, but by whoever has a claim on it--say, taxpayers--then they are the owners, not the current possessor.
Rothbard says:
Why treat stolen property as a subclass of unowned? It's not unowned.
Then Rothbard says:
As an initial comment: in any event, a private home that A buys from B, using funds borrowed from a bank (and secured by a mortgage on the house) is not stolen property, nor is it unowned.
Rothbard writes:
Well -- Rothbard may be right or wrong here. It seems a bit too formulaic, too cookie cutter--but on the other hand it's tentative--he says "often" the "most practical method" is to do this. And is the mortgagee not morally complicit in taking out the mortgage? Is it even an act of aggression by the state, or even by the bank? I don't see it.
Thomas L. Knapp:
I do not think Rothbard fleshed this out very well, and the context he was talking about is not the same--he was talking about stolen, or unowned, property, or property owned by the state where you can't find the original owner or easily identify to whom restitution should be made. In this case--the bank is not the state, not exactly. The money lent to the homeowner is not stolen, not exactly; and it's certainly not unowned. If the homeowner can renege on the debt, then there are some "depositors"--maybe even some of the left's beloved union workers and laborers--who will be stiffed. It's just a transfer of wealth if you let this one guy homestead the whole house that he doesn't really own.
But this is a semantics issue: most libertarians use "capitalism" as a synonym for the free market, and the typical industrial society that can develop and flourish in it. It's not "left" to have a semantical disagreement over the proper term to use.
So do normal (read: plumbline) libertarians.
Depends what you mean. Real libertarians oppose the state and oppose the state chartering of corporations and the legislative setting of liability or lack thereof. But in the sense that roads could exist in the free market, but not state roads, so private corporations could of course exist, as ably demonstrated by Hessen.
The left-libs are incoherent on this issue anyway--they sometimes imply they are against all big business, whether corporate form is used or not; and sometimes against the corporate form, even if it's small or even non-profit. So what is it--the corporate form, or bigness? Or both--in which case the only thing you approve of are small, non-corporate firms?
Corporate personhood is a legal fiction not needed for a private company to establish the essential features of corporateness that is the reason people use corporations now. Limited liability flows from the nature of causal responsibility and from defects in the positivistic legal standards of vicarious liability and respondeat superior--why should shareholders be responsible for actions taken by others? (See my Corporations and Limited Liability for Torts.)
No libertarian is against unions; they are only against the extra-market power the state grants them: to force companies to bargain with them. We are opposed exactly and precisely to the artificial, false right that the state gives unions. Absent the state, the unions would not be able to legitimately use violence against companies to compel them to the bargaining table or to accept certain proposals.
Libertarians are also opposed to the state granting corporate status. It is just that we realize that companies could be formed on the free market with similar characteristics, without state help. We are opposed to state-granted incorporation,and to state-granted limited liability. We simply do not believe that on the free market that vicarious liability should be imposed without a good reason.
So, again, we see the lack of reason to use the term "left" libertarian; and the failure of their criticism of "vulgar" libertarians to hit home.
Published: March 3, 2009 1:20 PM
Mike
"No libertarian is against unions"
**Spit take**
Published: March 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Backatcha
Unions are state creations.
Published: March 3, 2009 2:28 PM
Mike
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008954.asp#comment-473953
Published: March 3, 2009 2:35 PM
JB1122
As long as the state exists, it will be marginally involved in all aspects of the free market - even to the point of utilizing a free market mechanism (in this case a mortgage contract) to achieve the end it has set in its sights. The private company, when receiving direct state assistance has sold out to the state.
The question then becomes, how does that effect existing contracts between private individuals and the new state-assisted, ex-private, company?
Assuming both parties are private, in the mortgage case, the occupier of the home (the debtor) holds title to the home unless he provides cause to the creditor to reclaim the home upon default (contract breech).
A contradiction arises when the private creditor becomes "state owned" since many people believe that private individuals are "owners" of the state (in theory) and therefore can lay claim to it's property since it it was forcibly taken. This is a never ending loop of the home occupier (plundered taxpayer - entity #1) being forced to credit the state (entity #2) which in turn lays a partial, if not full, claim to the ex-private, new state-owned creditor (entity #3) which in turn lays claim the the home that is occupied by the plundered taxpayer. The only coercive use of force here is the states action of forcing the taxpayer to credit itself and then crediting (nationalizing) private companies.
Entity 1 and entity 3 agreed on the contract as private companies. That being so, the market mechanism of contract should not be target of aggressive force.
Don't know if that makes sense but it popped into my head.
Published: March 3, 2009 2:48 PM
RickC
To the original question, the answer is no. In signing the mortgage contracts the mortgagees were, in effect, recognizing the legitimacy of the mortgage companies'/banks' ownership of the properties. To come in after the fact with some "left-libertarian" (whatever that means) arguments about the illegitimacy of "state/bank" ownership is a non-starter.
I do not support anything Acorn, or groups like them do. Didn't they play some role in our current problems? Didn't they use the power of the government to force banks and mortgage companies to make loans? Now they want to claim the same government monopolies which they used to skew the markets, are illegitimate? Give me a break!
Published: March 3, 2009 2:50 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
Stephan,
You write:
"this is a semantics issue: most libertarians use 'capitalism' as a synonym for the free market, and the typical industrial society that can develop and flourish in it."
I used to know a guy who really liked cocaine. On one occasion, I was present when he phoned his dealer and ordered "half a chicken." It never occurred to me to believe that half a gram of cocaine and half a chicken were really the same thing and that the difference was all semantics.
"Capitalism" has a history. It was coined to mean certain things, it was popularized as meaning certain things, and when it is used most people will understand it as referring to those certain things, not other certain things which are only imputed to it by a subset of a small political sect.
"The left-libs are incoherent on this issue anyway -- they sometimes imply they are against all big business, whether corporate form is used or not; and sometimes against the corporate form, even if it's small or even non-profit. So what is it -- the corporate form, or bigness? Or both -- in which case the only thing you approve of are small, non-corporate firms?"
In my view, it is the corporate form, not "bigness." However ...
There's a reasonable argument that the "bigness" of corporations is at least partially function of their state-bestowed privilege -- that they are artificially over-capitalized by virtue of their state-bestowed limited liability, and therefore can invest money in growth which in a free market they'd have believe better invested in insurance.
I don't object to "bigness" per se, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that some "bigness" is a function of state distortion of the market, not of the market itself.
"why should shareholders be responsible for actions taken by others?"
Maybe they shouldn't be. But responsibility flows two ways -- if I'm not responsible for damages caused in the course of business of an enterprise I allegedly own, neither am I entitled to profits generated by an enterprise I allegedly own.
A shareholder is nothing more or less than a business owner -- in particular, a partner in a partnership. It might be a large partnership with many owners. The stake of the owners may vary in ratio and be denominated by shares (in which case it could reasonably be referred to as a joint stock company). But it's still just a partnership unless the state steps in to make it something else.
If you own something, you're responsible for it. If someone slips on your company's floor, they slipped on your floor.
The distinguishing feature of the corporation is that the state says "never mind the floor -- you own it for purposes of extracting profit from it, but when it comes to losses from torts, just tell the victims 'nyah, nyah, the state's got my back.'"
"No libertarian is against unions; they are only against the extra-market power the state grants them: to force companies to bargain with them."
Really? I'm not the only one who's noticed the double standard at Mises and LRC. Almost uniformly:
- Corporations, despite their state privilege and often without reference to it, are the downtrod good guys.
- Unions, not only not necessarily because of their state privilege, but often without even any reference to it, are the bad guys.
I have to assume that unlike the ignorant "Backatcha," you actually have some grasp of history and understand that until the mid-20th century, unions were not only not state creatures but were often centers of anti-state activity (even Rand credited the unions with busting up FDR's labor conscription scheme).
Hell, I could even make a plausible case that Samuel Gompers was a "vulgar libertarian." He treated unionism as a business model for cartelization of labor; he was pro-business ("the worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit"); he was anti-imperialist; he even hewed to the idiotic "right" libertarian arguments against unrestricted immigration (for obvious rent-seeking reasons).
Published: March 3, 2009 3:08 PM
Mike
Nice cover, Steph.
For those who are late to the game, Stephan edited the post I linked to. It used to read:
"On a tangential note--for most libertarians, the evil of unions, "workers' rights," and laws that penalize employers and business is taken for granted."
But now reads:
"On a tangential note--for most libertarians, the evil of (state-law-supported) unions, "workers' rights," and laws that penalize employers and business is taken for granted."
Published: March 3, 2009 3:23 PM
Little Alex
Stephan Kinsella:
My initial reaction to foreclosures was that of Mr. Knapp's stance at some point over a year or so ago using Rothbard's "most practical method of de-statization". Your response to that opens the question I've debated in my own head many times: who holds the most justifyable claim to hold title of foreclosed property? What if the 'paper-holder' was Fannie/Freddie (FF)? Does this change the claim with the State as the conservator of FF?
I'm inclined to bank-depositors holding the greatest claim as a case can be made that banks robbed them of their money through gross malinvestment -- to different degrees, by fiat. Are the bank-depositors to now be shareholders of these "paper"? Should they make this claim and form boards to liquidate the paper or rent out the property?
Being a law student, these questions are a fun little game to me, but my initial argument (Knapp's) and just tossing "deadbeats" out there are too hasty, IMO; hasty enough to ignore a wealth of valid questions relating to libertarian (mainly, Rothbardian) arguments on banking, prior definitions of "homesteading" as they relate to this extraordinary situation on a massive scale coinciding with the Nanny-State pampering the banks' cushions, and contract theory.
But, if we're going to turn this into a Jedi/Sith argument of banksters v. "deadbeats": who was 'more' a deadbeat at contract signing? Calling them both "deadbeats" raises my prior questions, right?
Another note: Mr. Kinsella is being misunderstood as a bankster-apologist, which I don't interpret at all here. I think people are getting caught up in the argument and Mr. Kinsella's 'crafty' rhetoric.
Published: March 3, 2009 3:46 PM
Backatcha
Criminal gangs are usually centers of anti-state activity too.
I stand by my assertion that "unions are state creations" with the understanding that the word "are" means "plural present indicative of be."
But perhaps my understanding that words have meaning is "vulgar"?
Published: March 3, 2009 3:53 PM
Backatacha
"if I'm not responsible for damages caused in the course of business of an enterprise I allegedly own, neither am I entitled to profits generated by an enterprise I allegedly own"
Yes, and perhaps the employees are not entitled to wages. And perhaps the lenders are not entitled to interest. And perhaps the customer is not entitled to the benefits of the product.
And so forth. But we. get. it. Shareholders are evil.
Published: March 3, 2009 3:55 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Thomas L. Knapp:
The point is that most libertarians when they use it in a political sense use it as a synonym for libertarianism.
Yes, you have a decent semantics argument as to whether we should use that word as a synonym for our movement. I myself have over the years shied away from using capitalism as a synonym for libertarianism. But this does not make me "lefty".
Could be, but are you saying you are NOT against a big firm that is NOT organized as a "corporation"?
Say, a huge LLC or Ltd ?
Yes, we all recognize this. This makes us economically and politically astute, and anti-state, not "left."
I suppose you can mount an argument to this effect if you want, but this assertion is not obvious at all. Where is the "two way street" axiom of libertarianism?
I disagree. We must stop relying on state classifications. Ownership just means right to control (1, 2). To set up a private "corporation" there are a variety of individuals with varying types of right to control over assets. Managers and directors and employees and customers and creditors and shareholders all have different rights of control, specified in the charter--it's a big network of agreements. See Hessen on this--he's excellent.
You seem here to discount the ability of lawyers and businessmen to come up with very creative and complex ways to arrange their business affairs. I would not be so quick to assume this. It is merely an assertion.
Says who? What does this even mean? Libertarianism simply says: you must not commit aggression against others. This does not automatically imply you are "responsible for" things you own. Ownership means right to control, not obligations (unless you can show how they flow from the right to control). It is not even clear to me what you mean by "responsible for".
Yes, they slipped. How does the fact that my company's floor played a role in harm that befell a given person automatically imply that "the owner is liable"? It most certainly does not. If there is an agreement in effect, it does not, as one example--so who knows what the implicit agreements or terms are? Etc.
You are wrong. This is not a distinguishing feature, since if we are right that passive shareholders are not personally liable anyway for torts committed by an employee of a company they have limited rights to, then the state is not doing anything extra here. If anything, the state's pretense that it is doing this is used by the state as an excuse to double-tax shareholders and regulate the company--"after all," if the state is granting a privilege, it has the right to condition it. That is their line. They are wrong: they have no right to regulate because they are not granting any privilege (and if they are, they have no right to); you guys accept the state's propaganda that they are the ones granting this privilege to the companies. This is similar to the typical statist reasoning (accepted by most sheep-like brainwashed citizens) that because the state "gives you liberty" then you have to "give back" (serve on jury, pay taxes, serve in army)--this is likewise nonsense, since the state does not give us liberty and has no right not to respect our liberty.
You can generalize this where is the proof? We libertarinas oppose the state giving extra-market power to unions, power they would not have on the free market. When it comes to private unions, the plumbline libertarian is as neutral with respect to them as he with respect to churches and private clubs--it's no longer a political issue.
As for favoring corporations--perhaps more care could be taken not to appear to be an all-out vulgar Randian worshipper of American business without qualifying it to make it clear that we of course oppose the state interference, subsidies, and distortions that arise from this--ah, but we do. This is not a left thing to do. We do it all the time. If I recall decades ago Rothbard criticized the Randian notion that Big Business (here he calls it "ludicrous"). And a good deal of the Austro-libertarian commentary is on detailing the distorting effects on the economy of the state's intervention. So what are you talking about?
This is all well and good, but so long as the "union" is not supported by state law, I am neutral about them--whatever deals companies make with unions is fine by me. And if they oppose the state, that's even better, but to me that seems extra-union, not in the nature of unions per se.
Mike:
Sure, so what? I clarified, made what was implicit explicit, to keep people like you from twisting words.
Published: March 3, 2009 4:03 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
Little Alex,
You write:
"My initial reaction to foreclosures was that of Mr. Knapp's stance"
I don't recall disclosing any stance on foreclosures. I certainly didn't intend to do so.
Stephan,
You write:
"are you saying you are NOT against a big firm that is NOT organized as a 'corporation?'"
I am not against a firm being big; I am against a firm receiving market-distorting privileges from the state, including through the instrument of state charter incorporation.
As it happens, I do lay blame for the dispensation of such privilege on the dispenser (the state) rather than on the receiver (the company) unless I see obvious evidence of the receiver lobbying for that privilege.
To put it a different way, I don't have anything against (for example) Wal-Mart existing, or doing business, or making a profit, or getting "big."
I don't even particularly blame Wal-Mart's principals for "going with the flow" in terms of accepting state privileges that are out there for the taking -- if they didn't, their competitors would still do so, and clobber them with those privileges.
If I spot Wal-Mart lobbyists seeking additional state privileges, then I begin to blame Wal-Mart's principals -- they've gone from being passive beneficiaries of a bad thing to co-creators of that bad thing.
And whether or not I blame Wal-Mart's principals, of course, I recognize that they're operating in a state-distorted, rather than free, market.
I don't find Hessen's argument for "corporations" (in anything recognizably similar to their current form) existing in a true free market compelling ... but I doubt that I could argue the case fully in a blog comment. It would probably take a book.
"Libertarianism simply says: you must not commit aggression against others. This does not automatically imply you are 'responsible for' things you own."
The three forms of aggression as I understand them are plain intentional aggression (picking someone's pocket), fraud (promising X for Y, receiving Y and not delivering X), and negligent aggression (allowing one or one's property to cause injury or loss to another, whether one intends that injury or loss or not, when one could have prevented that from happening).
If I own a car, I am responsible for the consequences of its use. If I intentionally run someone down with it, I'm committing plain aggression. If I trick someone into buying it on the promise that it has an engine in it when it doesn't, I'm committing fraud. If I drink three pints of whiskey and "accidentally" hit a pedestrian with it, I'm committing negligent aggression.
If I own a company, I am responsible for any of the three types of aggression mentioned above which may transpire in its operations. If my ownership is partial, my responsibility may also be partial, but it's not zero. Like you said, ownership = control. Who could possibly be responsible for aggression caused by a company's operations except those who own (control) that company's operations?
Published: March 3, 2009 6:00 PM
RichF
Dammit, didn't this page say somewhere to "Post an intelligent and civil comment"? John Tate, can you help me here?
Published: March 3, 2009 6:03 PM
FTG
Native American Left-Libertarian,
According to Kevin Carson's work [...] the TRUE property owners are those whose capital was stolen by the state.
That would mean that any person whose capital has NOT been stolen by the State cannot be the true property owner, and that would include any Native Americans whose capital has not been taken by the State. Obviously, this is absurd, which means your assertion is incorrect.
This means that me...as a Native American...really owns your house.
This is a non sequitur. You cannot claim property by ancestry since ancestry is an accident, not something you achieved.
My land was stolen by the white criminal banksters starting in the 1600s. Your house and Wal-Mart are MY property.
It wasn't your land, so you beg the question, unless you were alive in the 1600s and thus prove possession.
Further, my parents and ancestors were working class folks. Just folks. And I am working class. [This] means that Rothbard and Mises would agree [...] that my capital was illegally appropriated by Monopoly Capital.
It cannot mean such a thing since the conclusion is a non sequitur. First, your ancestry is by accident, not something you sought or achieved; second, unless you can prove you worked as a laborer under direct coercion, then you must have worked as a laborer voluntarily - thus, you cannot now allege coercion just because you worked as a laborer.
Published: March 3, 2009 6:33 PM
Little Alex
Knapp:
I might've misunderstood your usage of "legitimate" as the use of "deadbeats" by Mr. Kinsella has been, then.
On corporations:
Are you implying that in a free market, labor would curb 'corporation' growth, spontaneously?
Published: March 3, 2009 7:04 PM
Jeremy
Which banks nowadays are "private", exactly? Which do not benefit from artificial barriers to market entry by competitors? Which do not slurp up freshly printed or computerized dollars from the Fed whenever they get the chance?
Misesians seem to want to defend the "idea" of a private bank that doesn't exist. All left libertarians are doing is applying libertarian theory to the here and now.
Libertarianism does not imply particular institutions and social relationships. You're free to predict that a freed market would look like Galt's Gulch, union-free and a run by the biggest corporations you can imagine populated with rich people or grateful poor ones. We're free to predict that a freed market would look more like worker-owned businesses, more egalitarian wealth distributions, and usufruct property conventions. Let's see who's right.
I don't see why it's so hard to understand our use of the term "left libertarian". We use it to distinguish ourselves from your cultural preferences.
Published: March 3, 2009 7:50 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
Little Alex,
You write:
"I might've misunderstood your usage of 'legitimate' as the use of "deadbeats" by Mr. Kinsella has been, then."
More likely my fault, I was trying to tweak Mr. Kinsella's nose a little bit. Suffice it to say that just because I consider the claim of a state-backed or -created institution to property suspect, it doesn't automatically follow from that that I consider any other particular claim valid.
"On corporations:
Are you implying that in a free market, labor would curb 'corporation' growth, spontaneously?"
No. However, I suspect that in the absence of state privilege versus liability, some money which goes into expansion via capitalization through the sale of stock under the current system would instead go to the purchase of portfolio liability insurance by the prospective investors. It might not be a huge percentage, but it would be some.
Right now, if I pay $X per share for stock, the state says "hey, if the company you're buying part of gets into serious liability issues, we've got your back." Without that state subsidy, I'd probably buy X-(some amount) shares, using the difference to purchase an insurance policy so that when my company negligently nukes Albany I don't lose my house and my favorite pair of fuzzy slippers in the ensuing tort litigation. And so would everyone else.
Published: March 3, 2009 9:04 PM
JB1122
Jeremy,
Prior to this financial crisis, the banks were private. During which time they did benefit, as you say, from barriers to market entry. The creation of the Fed is part of these barriers. It creates a monopoly entity who's product is transmitted as currency with the protected banks engaging in the transmission business. (The Fed also directly assists the state by funding debt but that is a separate consideration). Does the state, when protecting a private business, entitle the rest of the citizens in the state to lay claim to it? I would say no.
Now in the current situation, the Fed has financed the purchase of private entities by the state. This by itself means nothing (in a contract / ownership sense) other than now the state owns the banks. This bring up the ownership claim "circle of death" whereby the home possessor "owns" the state, which "owns" the banks, which "owns" the persons house. Nothing can be determined while the conventions that are being used permit this circular ownership claim to continue.
If voluntary contract is a staple of libertarianism, how can one expect to advance this position when at the same time calling for its abolition just because one entity is now under control of "the state". If someone loans me money and I issue them an IOU note, and then they sell that note to someone else, does that make the IOU contract void and allow me off the hook for repayment?
This is exactly what happened with the banks shareholders (who are the real people loaning money) sell their stock to the government.
Now I admit I am a neophyte in these matters and have only been reading stuff on libertarianism for about a year now (mostly bank stuff). But, I must admit, the strict adherence to voluntary contract is something that first drew me to this way of thinking.
Published: March 3, 2009 9:13 PM
newson
tl knapp says:
"If I own a car, I am responsible for the consequences of its use. If I intentionally run someone down with it, I'm committing plain aggression. If I trick someone into buying it on the promise that it has an engine in it when it doesn't, I'm committing fraud. If I drink three pints of whiskey and "accidentally" hit a pedestrian with it, I'm committing negligent aggression."
what has ownership got to do with this?
if you'd borrowed the car (or stolen it), you'd still be the one facing a murder charge, not the car owner. the car owner could only be implicated if he commissioned, or was complicit in the act.
likewise, when you're charged with drunk-driving, the ownership is immaterial.
in scenario two, the ownership issue is not the central one. it's that you have engaged in willful misrepresentation in a sales contract. you may be selling the car for a friend, and the lying part may be entirely your contribution. it's about the who participates in the lie, not necessarily whose property is being transacted.
Published: March 3, 2009 9:17 PM
Jeremy
I suppose the degree to which you think a given contract is voluntary is a matter of personal judgment. Left libertarians suspect that, at their roots, many traditional institutions and relationships are less than voluntary. And I think this angers those who are invested, not just in liberty and freedom, but in particular institutions and relationships - people, for example, like conservatives.
Published: March 3, 2009 9:35 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Thomas L. Knapp:
So are all libertarians, if only by being anarchist (which all true libertarians are). This isn't "left". It's pro-rights, pro-property, and anti-state.
I don't find Hessen's argument for "corporations" (in anything recognizably similar to their current form) existing in a true free market compelling ... but I doubt that I could argue the case fully in a blog comment. It would probably take a book.
Not to diminish your abilities, but I doubt you could argue it even in a book--for the simple reason that Hessen is correct.
All aggression is use of another's property without their consent. The use is intentional; if it's fully intentional, it's a crime, or tort; if only partly so, negligence. As for fraud, it's a crime precisely b/c it's just a mode of commiting theft (see my post Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach).
See, this doesn't follow from what you just said. You are responsible for your actions, whatever means you employ--even if you use stolen property to do it.
What does this have to do with ownership? If you intentionally run someone down with my car, you are still committing "plain aggression."
Yes--because fraud is a type of theft--it's a way of gaining control of another's property without their consent. What does this have to do with being "responsible" for things you own?
I dont konw whether by "it" you mean the whiskey or a car, but in either case you are responsible whether or not you own the "it" you use as a means to harm someone.
So you assert. Where's your proof?
Again, mere assertion--and confused, to boot. In my view, if you are responsible, you are 100% responsible, not "partially". Suppose A and B, independent parties, both hate C. They each set fire simultaneously to opposite of the field outside C's house. The fires reach and consume the house, killing C.
Now each is independent: if A had not set his fire, B's would still have killed C; and vice-versa. So neither A nor B's actions is a "but-for" cause of the death. I guess each gets off!
No, not so: I'd say: both are 100% responsible. If A is broke and B has a billion dollars, B has to pay full damages to C's widow, not just "his half".
No, I said, quite intentionally, right to control.
Wel, first off, this is a disingenuous way of putting it. You assume it's caused by "the company's operations." Aggression or torts are always committed by particular individuals--say, the FedEx truck driver. Why is it "the company's" doing? Why not just the negligent driver? Why imput vicarious liability on someone else?
But even if you do--sure, okay, it's those who control the operations. But that's the managers, say, who direct the negligent employee's activities; and maybe the board of directors. But the shareholders? They are passive. They only elect directors. They don't "control" the driver's actions. Imagine what would happen if a Google shareholder tried to march into HQ and see the CEO's office. Does he have a right to? A right to control? No, not directly.
Jeremy:
This is not true. First, by this standard--who among us is "private"? We are all subsidized and regulated and taxed. I guess that means it's all up for grabs--there are no ethics or rules or morals or rights.
Coherent, rational, plumb-line libertarians, qua libertarians, don't give a damn about your cultural preferences any more than we do about your sexual practices or religion.
newson:
Wow, Newson is great. No offense, Silas.
Published: March 3, 2009 10:01 PM
Peter
If I own a car, I am responsible for the consequences of its use. If I intentionally run someone down with it, I'm committing plain aggression. If I trick someone into buying it on the promise that it has an engine in it when it doesn't, I'm committing fraud. If I drink three pints of whiskey and "accidentally" hit a pedestrian with it, I'm committing negligent aggression.
If your car is parked on the side of the road and another driver (having drunk three pints of whiskey or not - though I suspect after having drunk three pints of whiskey you'd be quite safe behind the wheel, being unconscious if not dead) hits it and shunts it into a pedestrian (accidentally or not), you're not responsible; your ownership of the car is not relevant.
Similarly, if someone on a bicycle loses control and rams your car, injuring himself in the process, you're not responsible (unless you parked on a corner in a bicycle lane, or something equally stupid).
Or if you loan your car to a friend, who goes out and intentionally runs someone down (assuming you didn't know he was going to do that when he asked to borrow the car)... Etc.
Ownership != responsibility.
Published: March 3, 2009 10:32 PM
DixieFlatline
Like the conflation argument, LLs get their lunch handed to them by Vulgar Misoids. I don't agree with everything Stephan Kinsella posts, but he is heroic, Promethean fending off the swarms of Carsonites and Longophiles.
Dr. Long has created a significant amount of confusion in libertarian circles with his thick and thin, left is libertarian, libertarian is leftism positions.
As Karen DeCoster pointed out, some so-called "vulgar libertarians" certainly knew Murray Rothbard and worked with him, much closer than the current gang of 20 and 30 something radicals who claim exclusivity over his intellectual legacy.
Recently on the Mises forum, when confronted by a Rothbardian position which challenged a premise of the libertarian left, the response from BrainPolice was that Rothbard was "semantically confused" having invoked Rothbard that same day as an authority on another portion of the same argument.
And so it goes with the LLs. They are never wrong, even when they clearly are. The Conflation Argument ended the same way. Not with surrender, but with a silent retreat.
What's terribly sad is that Karen and Stephan give them any ink. Let them hide out on BlogSpot and the Center for a Kevin Carson Society (C4SS). Let them raise their own money instead of always parasiting off of LvMI, LRC or Google. The reason why they continue to be an annoying counter-factual thorn in the side of libertarian activism is because people keep recognizing them, wasting time and resources, when they have contributed nothing to justify such recognition. They are just squeaky wheels.
Published: March 3, 2009 10:34 PM
Rich Paul
Trying to conflate subsidized, partially nationalized, fractional reserve fiat money banks with "evil" "capitalist" landlords is so obviously wrong that it is does not even qualify as sloppy. It's just dishonesty.
The problem with banks is not that they are evil (which many are) or capitalist (which they are not), but that they are creations of the Corporatist, fiat money state, fueled by inflation, subsidy, and privledge.
I don't have a firm idea as to whether these people who refuse to leave a home are right or wrong. I see both sides of the argument. But it takes an effort not to be prejudiced against your side of the argument, when you spout such dishonest drivel. I expect more from an Austrian economist.
Published: March 3, 2009 10:56 PM
Jeremy
Ultimately, we are all influenced by the state to some degree - we are all damaged by the violence it wields. This doesn't mean that there aren't priorities in the dismantling of the state power. And in the real world - not Galt's Gulch - corporations are a key pillar of institutional power for the state. You simply *cannot* address state power without addressing corporate privilege.
That's just not true. You *do* have cultural preferences, a view of the world informed by your subjective value judgments, and that influences the set of institutions and relationships you think are viable.
It's OK to have a opinions about the application of libertarianism that go beyond mere mechanistic rule application. It's part of being a human being. Just acknowledge it.
The key left libertarian insight I apply to this situation specifically is Carson's dictum of there being no single conception of property rights one can logically deduce from the axiom of self-ownership. So every conception of property outside the self is itself a standalone axiom, with its own arbitary cultural / emotional / subjective aspects. And it is this, not "libertarianism" as a detached ideal, that Misesians defend and left libertarians reject.
Published: March 4, 2009 9:04 AM
O. Contraire
How exactly does one determine who is rightfully the exclusive user of a scarce thing by way of "arbitary cultural / emotional / subjective aspects"? If you have 2 claimants each defining property ownership in his own "cultural/emotional/subjective" way, then how do you resolve the conflict?
Seems to me that you have to have a clearly defined standard of ownership to refer to for property disputes so that everyone knows what's what. "Cultural/emotional/subjective aspects" don't cut it. Otherwise, you may have a recipe for chaos.
Published: March 4, 2009 11:37 AM
Daniel Plainview
"Until someone expends labor discovering or removing minerals under his (or other) land from the use of others..."
Now if you had a milkshake and I had a milkshake and I had a straw, you see watch it. My straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE! [Makes slurping sound] I DRINK IT UP!
Published: March 4, 2009 3:30 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
"Seems to me that you have to have a clearly defined standard of ownership to refer to for property disputes so that everyone knows what's what. 'Cultural/emotional/subjective aspects' don't cut it. Otherwise, you may have a recipe for chaos."
Granted, a "clearly defined standard of ownership to refer to for property disputes" is a good thing.
Just because such a standard is a good thing, however, it doesn't necessarily follow that one, and only one, such standard can be logically deduced from an axiomatic premise of self-ownership.
If more than one such standard can be logically deduced, then it's possible that different groups of associating individuals may choose different such standards -- and that conflicts will therefore arise when two such groups adopting different standards come into contact.
If anyone finds the box that the universe came in, I'd be interested in seeing if there's a lifetime warranty slip guaranteeing a chaos-free existence. Maybe we just missed it and it's buried way down in the packaging peanuts or something.
Published: March 4, 2009 9:01 PM
O. Contraire
"If anyone finds the box that the universe came in, I'd be interested in seeing if there's a lifetime warranty slip guaranteeing a chaos-free existence. Maybe we just missed it and it's buried way down in the packaging peanuts or something."
That was clever, sharp, witty, and utterly irrelevant to what I posted. You've displayed your clever wit in all its pointless glory.
"If more than one such standard can be logically deduced, then it's possible that different groups of associating individuals may choose different such standards -- and that conflicts will therefore arise when two such groups adopting different standards come into contact."
Now there's an intelligent observation, which basically just reiterates what I said dressed in different verbiage. And if you have 2 people with completely different conceptions of what constitutes legitimate ownership of something, some provable standard will be necessary in order to determine which is the rightful owner, not subjective feelings and emotions. The former is key to a peaceful society, the latter is potentially an invitation to violence.
Published: March 4, 2009 10:07 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
O Contraire,
"Now there's an intelligent observation, which basically just reiterates what I said dressed in different verbiage."
No, not really.
"if you have 2 people with completely different conceptions of what constitutes legitimate ownership of something, some provable standard will be necessary in order to determine which is the rightful owner, not subjective feelings and emotions."
Carson's assertion is that more than one standard can be logically deduced ("proven") from the premise of self-ownership.
One observation pertaining to Carson's assertion is that adopters of any particular such standard tend to treat that particular standard as itself axiomatic and start adorning it with "cultural/emotional/subjective" trinkets which in turn affect their judgment as it pertains both to implementation of the standard and to evaluation of standards which might come into competition with theirs.
Something can be "necessary" all day long without ever becoming "available."
Published: March 5, 2009 11:48 AM
O'Contraire
Oh, OK. So I guess 2 people who believe they have claims to the same property because each has a completely different "cultural/emotional/subjective" conception of legitimate ownership will just have to...what? Have a duel, or something? Or maybe the dispute can just be settled by seeing who can shout the loudest.
Published: March 5, 2009 2:28 PM
O'Contraire
BTW, speaking of "cultural/emotional/subjective", on what grounds should I accept Kevin Carson as some kind of authority on property rights?
Published: March 5, 2009 2:31 PM
O. Contraire
BTW, speaking of "cultural/emotional/subjective", on what grounds should I accept Kevin Carson as some kind of authority on property rights?
Published: March 5, 2009 2:31 PM
Thomas L. Knapp
O'Contraire,
You write:
"Oh, OK. So I guess 2 people who believe they have claims to the same property because each has a completely different 'cultural/emotional/subjective' conception of legitimate ownership will just have to...what? Have a duel, or something? Or maybe the dispute can just be settled by seeing who can shout the loudest."
When responding to my arguments, you might want to try actually responding to those arguments rather than reiterating your hangups with someone else's phraseology.
If more than one theory of property can be logically deduced from (i.e. is valid as it relates to) self-ownership/non-aggression, then what we're likely to see (in a total system adherent to self-ownership/non-aggression) are individuals grouping/aggregating into societies or societal components with other individuals who adopt the same such theory that they adopt. Arguments over which theory will serve as the standard for dispute resolution will occur at the edges of such groups, i.e. when an individual in one group with one theory enters into a dispute with an individual in another group with a different theory.
If the theories adhered to by both groups are valid, then the conflict is irreconciliable through logic. "3+1" is not an inherently "better" way to arrive at "4" than "2+2." It is then likely that further conflict will result as adherents of each theory beat their chests on "cultural/emotional/subjective" grounds, since neither side can prevail on logic.
This could be an indication that self-ownership /non-aggression are not the, or least not the only, necessary premises for creating "peaceable resolutions."
Or it could be be an indication that even the best/optimum solution doesn't come with a 100% performance guarantee from the universe.
Published: March 5, 2009 3:10 PM
O. Contraire
"If the theories adhered to by both groups are valid, then the conflict is irreconciliable through logic. '3+1' is not an inherently 'better' way to arrive at '4' than '2+2.' It is then likely that further conflict will result as adherents of each theory beat their chests on 'cultural/emotional/subjective' grounds, since neither side can prevail on logic.
"This could be an indication that self-ownership /non-aggression are not the, or least not the only, necessary premises for creating 'peaceable resolutions.'"
Ah, everything's up for grabs! The Lunatarian Left has spoken!
Well Knapp, judging by this ACORN nonsense, I'd say that world is closer to reality than you realize. By all means, enjoy it.
Published: March 5, 2009 4:01 PM
Lunatarian Leftard
Dude, there is no "logic" anyways. Just listen to the universe. Listen to its magical song and let it wash all over you like a waterfall and it will tell you everything that you would ever want to know.
Hey, man. Don't bogard that J...
Published: March 5, 2009 5:04 PM
Dude, Where's My Bong?
Remember, that which we call "reality" is nothing more than the product of our nervous system's interaction with the very quantum particles that comprise it. Sit back and enjoy it. It's all good, man.
Published: March 5, 2009 7:30 PM
Jeremy
But isn't that what a community is - a group of people who live in close proximity to each other because, for whatever reason among many, they've agreed on arbitrary rules concerning how property will be used within a given geographic area? What does it help to make property into a religion that must be either accepted or rejected according to misesian / objectivist / republican tenets? Different people have different priorities - let them form communities that reflect that, so that more of these rules are naturally followed. THAT is the path to the genuinely voluntary society, I should think.
The standard can be defined without being *universal*.
Published: March 6, 2009 7:35 AM
Jeremy
You know what, O.Contraire? If you're looking for an "authority" of any type, let alone one on property rights, left libertarianism probably isn't for you.
Humans have been around for a long time. Private property has been around for a long time. Funnily enough, I still see conflict wherever I look.
This religious faith in the cleansing power of strict lockean private property is just amazing. The idea that property has superior primacy to the human beings occupying the space around it says a lot about your school of libertarianism. You'll keep pushing the square peg into the round whole and lamenting how crappy humans around you are for not accepting your axioms.
I personally believe there's more to the human condition and libertarianism than "this is mine, that is yours".
Published: March 6, 2009 7:44 AM
Jeremy
Forgive me, Rothbard and Mises, but I never read any of your work taking away the central point that the commenters here seem to believe: that the system you advocated was a means to ending human conflict for all time. How could I have missed that?
And us left libertarians are dismissed as the hippy dreamers...
Published: March 6, 2009 7:49 AM
Thomas L. Knapp
O. Contraire,
Your logic is probably be ineluctable if you have any.
Do you?
Published: March 6, 2009 12:33 PM
T
ACORN is a state creation.
Published: March 9, 2009 8:15 AM
T
"The distinguishing feature of the corporation is that the state says "never mind the floor -- you own it for purposes of extracting profit from it, but when it comes to losses from torts, just tell the victims 'nyah, nyah, the state's got my back.'"
I call strawman. Corporations are sued all the time for torts.
Remember the little old lady who sued McDonalds because her coffee was "too hot"?
Anyone who has cable and sees the ambulance-chaser commercials knows that suits against corporations for torts is a multi-billion dollar business.
I can find literally thousands of counter-examples to this claim. It's a strawman.
Published: March 9, 2009 8:29 AM
Peter
Carson's assertion is that more than one standard can be logically deduced ("proven") from the premise of self-ownership.
If you can deduce two (or more) contrary results from the same axiom, there's something wrong with your axiom.
(And there's nothing wrong with the axiom)
Published: March 9, 2009 8:59 AM
Rich Paul
>> So are all libertarians, if only by being anarchist >> (which all true libertarians are).
Bull. There are more things in the Libertarian movement than are dreamed of in your philosophy.
There is a reason that we use two words: Libertarian, and Anarchist. All Anarchists are Libertarian. This does not imply that all Libertarians are Anarchist.
Libertarians can be categorized as minarchists (those who believe that the best results would be achieved by a minimal state), as anarchists (those who believe in complete removal of the state), and as -- for lack of a better term -- Agnostic Libertarians, who do not know whether they prefer small government or no government, but who prefer either to the stinking corpulent states under which (nearly) all mankind struggles today.
If three Libertarians want to flee California for New Hampshire (http://freestateproject.org), it may well be efficient for them to all ride together, even if one is going to Keene to engage in civil disobedience, one is going to Grafton to live off the grid, and the third is going to Concord to work within the system.
Published: March 9, 2009 7:48 PM
Rich Paul
>> So are all libertarians, if only by being anarchist >> (which all true libertarians are).
Bull. There are more things in the Libertarian movement than are dreamed of in your philosophy.
There is a reason that we use two words: Libertarian, and Anarchist. All Anarchists are Libertarian. This does not imply that all Libertarians are Anarchist.
Libertarians can be categorized as minarchists (those who believe that the best results would be achieved by a minimal state), as anarchists (those who believe in complete removal of the state), and as -- for lack of a better term -- Agnostic Libertarians, who do not know whether they prefer small government or no government, but who prefer either to the stinking corpulent states under which (nearly) all mankind struggles today.
If three Libertarians want to flee California for New Hampshire (http://freestateproject.org), it may well be efficient for them to all ride together, even if one is going to Keene to engage in civil disobedience, one is going to Grafton to live off the grid, and the third is going to Concord to work within the system.
Published: March 9, 2009 7:49 PM