The philosophy of liberty

reply to post by mnemeth1
I loved that!.

Absolutely loved it!.

Thanks!.

Social contract,while observing moral contract/conduct.....

While being able to read a dead language used to write said contract.

What's wrong here?,besides the fact we all agree to disagree?.

This is where the true power is;divide and conquer.

How did we ever end up here?.

It makes me sad that more people aren't interested in learning the philosophy of liberty.

I can see there is a lot of confusion between the socialists and the capitalists about what is and isn't property, and what is and isn't a social contract.

I'm going to channel Spooner and Proudhon for a bit, and maybe help clear things up.

Spooner, of course, was an early Individualist in America, and wrote a BRILLIANT essay called No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority (ie, Social Contracts have NO authority).
No Treason

I'm sure mnemeth1 has read it (or at least I hope, since he's an ancap, and Rothbard praised Spooner and Tucker and the like). But for those of you who haven't, it is amazingly well thought out.

Basically, it states the no social contract is valid. Any and all laws based on social contracts are only valid to those to openly agree to its contract. NO ONE else. Not the society in which they live, not their children, NO ONE else. His logic is flawless.

That being said, since all social contracts are invalid to those who did not agree to the contract, they do not have to follow it. That means ANY and ALL form of governments have no legal authority excepting for which those you allow it (or consent to). Everything else is coercion (force). Whether it be taxation, or anything else.

That sums up the social contract, and its invalidity to those who did not give their liberty up to agree to it.

Now on the other hand, we have this rift of socialism versus capitalism.

Socialism does not require one to be a slave, nor does it involve force. It is an economic principal, and does not require a state. It requires voluntary contracts between consenting adherents. Capitalism, also, does not require one to be a slave, nor does it involve force. It is an economic principal, and does not require a state. It requires voluntary contracts between consenting adherents.

As I'm sure all of you know, Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Now, I know some ancaps will hear that, and be all like, ZOMG collectives require states! No, they don't. There are no social contracts in libertarian socialism, all members have agreed to the terms of that society. That's what makes it anarchistic. This means that one is owed the fruits of his labor, but all non man-made things are owned by the collective (ie, Land, Air, Water, Minerals, animals, etc.). That is agreed to by the inhabitants of the collective, and as such, the inhabitants can agree to what is and isn't property, and everything is done through direct democracy. This brand of anarchism was made popular by Bakunin and (even more so IMHO) Proudhon.

Proudhon also has a great essay called What is Property?. Very well written, and intriguing. In it, Proudhon states that all Property is theft. Now, he isn't so insane as to propose that ALL property is theft, he makes the distinction clear that, property, which you had no blood, sweat, and tears in producing yourself, cannot belong to you. Thus, land, and minerals cannot be owned by one man, but instead belong to humanity. It is a very compelling argument.

On the other end of the spectrum, and have capitalists. As, I'm sure all of you know, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Now, This flies right in the face of Proudhon, and the socialists, because they deem that not everything can be owned by an individual, especially when that individual was not involved in (or traded an equal amount of labor for) the making of that product (ie, Land, People, animals, etc). Capitalism, also requires that some have more economic power over others, even if they themselves did not produce it.

But, this style of society CAN be achieved if all members of that society have agreed to, and signed contract upon what is and isn't property, and how to obtain it. But this leads to a VERY important dichotomy:

PURE capitalism requires a state, as it requires a monopoly of force to enforce the validity and safety of said contracts of property, whether if be physical or intellectual. And PURE socialism (or communism as it would rightly be called), requires a state, as it needs to enforce the group's ownership of agreed upon property, and make sure that no one is creating a monopoly of capital (since it belongs to the collective).

That states don't need to be big, but they will need to exist (even if just very quickly just to dissipate again). Myself, I'm a Mutualist and an Agorist. I believe complete decentralization of power, and I believe in the invalidity of unsigned social contracts, as ALL anarchists do. But I'm stuck in the middle, and I'm always seeing the left and the right do this stupid dance of what is and isn't property. Well guess what, property is decided by those in a society. As long as everything is decentralized, and there is no state, the free markets can reign, and everyone can live where they choose.

Socialists can live in equal mediocrity, and always know their inhabitants are taken care of, and Capitalists can have large disparaging wells between those that have capital and those that don't. But those that don't can have the dream of becoming one that does, and each collective can intermingle and trade freely.

Sorry for the rant, but this left-right dichotomy is so stupid when you take yourself outside the economic spectrum, and just realize that the enemy is that state, not an economic principal. We need to get along, or else that state will ALWAYS grow in power and force whatever social contracts we all disagree on down our throats.

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


I still remember the first time I read Spooner.

He pissed me off - hahahahha

I still hadn't fully accepted the philosophy of liberty at the time I read him, and he made me angry because his arguments were so good.

Clearly, he is correct in his line of reasoning as it pertains to the authority of constitutional contracts.

I think I should add the libertarian response to Proudhon's property arguments.

The video doesn't cover land ownership which Proudhon likes to harp on, but libertarian land ownership rights goes as follows:

A person can own physical land through a few means:

1. purchasing the rights to the land through voluntary contract

2. through the mechanism of homesteading

If land is not being put to use over time, then the property reverts back to a state of "no ownership".

The pioneers that expanded America westward acquired property in this fashion. If no one was using the land, you could stake your claim on it by actively working the land. So if you built a farm on unused land, you would own that farm land and could sell or do with it as you please.

If someone wanted to use your land after you had built your farm on it, they would have to purchase it from you at market prices.

If you stopped working the land and decided to pack up shop for the city, if you couldn't find a buyer for the land, the land reverted back to a state of no ownership and someone else could homestead it.

So this clears up the problems inherent in Proudhon's arguments.

I'm goingto have to read your links,the only concern that jumps to my eye is:"
"This means that one is owed the fruits of his labor, but all non man-made things are owned by the collective (ie, Land, Air, Water, Minerals, animals, etc.). That is agreed to by the inhabitants of the collective, and as such, the inhabitants can agree to what is and isn't property, and everything is done through direct democracy. This brand of anarchism was made popular by Bakunin and (even more so IMHO) Proudhon. "

Of course "Direct democracy" equates to"mob rule";and 51% can vote anything they want from the other49%. An issue addressed by a constitutional republic( where individual rights are supposed to suercede the "rights of the state".

reply to post by 46ACE


Yeah Arcane Demesne's arguments are flawed.

He makes two claims that make no sense to me.

One says that capitalism requires a State, which is incorrect. It simply requires a mechanism to protect property rights, which can easily be accomplished by private security guards and insurance companies.

The other is that capitalism leads to wealth disparity, which is also incorrect. I think he gets this notion from the current state of our economy, however the current state of our economy reflects a quasi-fascist system, not a free market system.

In a free market system, each person keeps the wealth of their labor in exact proportion to what they produce. So what you see are those who produce the most will have the most, while those who produce the least will have the least.

This is a completely fair arrangement.

Further, because each person in society is necessarily forced into productive behavior under a capitalist system, wealth disparities are minimized.

We can see this CLEARLY in America's own historical data. When the country was more capitalist, wealth disparity was at its lowest and productivity was at its highest.

I might also add that we see wealth disparities skyrocket after the creation of the federal reserve system. - specifically after the gold standard was eliminated.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A person can own physical land through a few means:

1. purchasing the rights to the land through voluntary contract

Contract with whom? Society, if one exists within that domain? or non used land with which the contract unnecessary (homesteading)?

2. through the mechanism of homesteading

If land is not being put to use over time, then the property reverts back to a state of "no ownership".

That's how mutualism (and to some extent socialism) works. Land isn't owned, it in 'possessed until unused'. That is not capitalism. Capitalism would ensure that land to the homesteader, and allow him to move out and charge rent, (the land and house are now capital). That's where socialism would find the distinction I believe.

Originally posted by 46ACE
Of course "Direct democracy" equates to"mob rule";and 51% can vote anything they want from the other49%. An issue addressed by a constitutional republic( where individual rights are supposed to suercede the "rights of the state".

You would need 100% of the population to agree on what % a vote requires to pass a law. That is up to the commune. some may require 99 or 100% vote rate every time, some may not. democracy doesn't inherently mean, majority rules...I don't think it does anyway.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A person can own physical land through a few means:

1. purchasing the rights to the land through voluntary contract

Contract with whom? Society, if one exists within that domain? or non used land with which the contract unnecessary (homesteading)?

2. through the mechanism of homesteading

If land is not being put to use over time, then the property reverts back to a state of "no ownership".

That's how mutualism (and to some extent socialism) works. Land isn't owned, it in 'possessed until unused'. That is not capitalism. Capitalism would ensure that land to the homesteader, and allow him to move out and charge rent, (the land and house are now capital). That's where socialism would find the distinction I believe.

Free market capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade agreements between people, nothing more and nothing less.

That is the extent of the meaning of the word capitalism - any other meaning is useless spin that I will not address because it is propaganda used by the left to demonize the word.

Free market capitalism necessitates property rights. Socialism is directly opposed to capitalism in regards to property rights. The libertarian definition of homesteading of property rights is in no way related to the socialist definition of property rights (basically there are none)

If a land owner builds a piece of property on his land and then rents it out - he is still putting the land to use. That is clear usage of the land. "No ownership" results when the land is unused.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 46ACE

 

One says that capitalism requires a State, which is incorrect. It simply requires a mechanism to protect property rights, which can easily be accomplished by private security guards and insurance companies.

I said pure capitalism would. Where everything is owned privately.

The other is that capitalism leads to wealth disparity, which is also incorrect. I think he gets this notion from the current state of our economy, however the current state of our economy reflects a quasi-fascist system, not a free market system.

If all land is claimed for, and a new comer wishes to acquire land, but has no capital of his own, he would need to sell his labor in order to gain capital. However, there is no guarantee that any amount of labor could earn him enough capital to purchase land (as land is scarce, the value has shot up much more than his lifetime of labor may afford).

I know our current is fascist, but that's what happens on the far right, at least in my view of it. With disgusting Marxism on the far left.

In a free market system, each person keeps the wealth of their labor in exact proportion to what they produce. So what you see are those who produce the most will have the most, while those who produce the least will have the least.

That is mutualism, not capitalism. capitalism != free markets. It can, but it doesn't have to.

This is a completely fair arrangement.

I agree!

Further, because each person in society is necessarily forced into productive behavior under a capitalist system, wealth disparities are minimized.

Not everyone is forced to produce in a capitalist system. The capital of land can be rented out, and from that rent, the owner will gain more capital without producing anything after the initial production of the gaining the land (or building upon it).

We can see this CLEARLY in America's own historical data. When the country was more capitalist, wealth disparity was at its lowest and productivity was at its highest.

I think you're confusing capitalism with free markets. I used to do that to. I used to oppose the socialist movement vehemently, until I realized it's just another end of the economic spectrum, and could have just as free markets at the right could.

I might also add that we see wealth disparities skyrocket after the creation of the federal reserve system. - specifically after the gold standard was eliminated.

It was skyrocketing with the advent of industry favoritism and corporate welfare just after the civil war when the steel, railroad, oil, etc. tycoons were running amok and getting their greedy hands into the states pockets. But I will agree the Fed Res was the last nail in the coffin. That's when the banks were finally able to control everything. Damn progressives...

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


If everything is privately owned under a pure capitalist system, this necessarily means the existence of a State is impossible.

And yes, there is an absolute guarantee that a person's labor will allow him enough to afford a place to live, even if the entire land available has been claimed and put to use. The reason for this is simple, people who run the corporations that produce goods require men to work for them. In the past, corporate owners have practically built entire cities to entice people to come and work for them.

Capitalism = free markets, end of story. Anything else is a leftist lie.

Everyone is forced to produce in a capitalist system because there is necessarily no welfare state, only private charity - and private charities seek to reduce the number of people on their rolls by getting them into productive jobs. If a person inherits a huge fortune in a capitalist system, if they do not put that money to good use, the market will take it from them. If a person is not putting their money to work and only spends it on useless baubles, they will be penniless quite shortly - just look at all the rockstars today who were rich and are now broke.

Under capitalism, industrial expansion reduced wealth disparity and made everyone richer in the process. During the period of the civil war, the rich industrialists in the north got rich because of government war contracts, not because of free markets.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Free market capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade agreements between people, nothing more and nothing less.

That is free markets, but capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Which is fine, so long as those within the commune all adhere to that same principle, and agree to what can and can't be 'owned'.

For instance, if you lived in a desert, I'm fairly certain a commune would revolt against one man or corporation alone owning the only fresh water source. But, in that same society, a prostitute may have complete and utter control over the means of her production (her body). So, the prostitute gets pure capitalist privileges, where as and individuals right to the fresh water source is invaded upon.

You don't have to have pure capitalism all the time, it goes in varying degrees, and those degrees are set up by contract to those who agree upon it. Such that, if a traveler was thirsty in the desert, and you owned the only fresh water source, you could attempt to extract capital from said traveler for trade in his use of your water. However, he did not agree to those terms, nor does he adhere to the contract of your ownership of said water. He doesn't believe that it can be owned, and thus you must use force to stop him from relinquishing his thirst. That force will inevitably become despotism, which will eventually become a state in its own right (allowing certain members to drink, and not others, and barring all foreigners from even seeing said water source).

That's really all I'm saying.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Free market capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade agreements between people, nothing more and nothing less.

That is free markets, but capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Which is fine, so long as those within the commune all adhere to that same principle, and agree to what can and can't be 'owned'.

That's a voluntary contract.

A socialist commune in which everyone agreed under contract to work for the benefit of the commune is fine, however the commune could not rightfully seize a private factory existing next door to it.

And the water argument is ridiculous on its face since the owner of a well would sell the water, not horde it. Further, its so far removed from reality that debating it is pointless.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne

 

Capitalism = free markets, end of story. Anything else is a leftist lie.

Come on now. I friend-ed you a long time ago because you had a good head on your shoulders, and now you won't even agree to the definition of capitalism. We can do better than this.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne

 

Capitalism = free markets, end of story. Anything else is a leftist lie.

Come on now. I friend-ed you a long time ago because you had a good head on your shoulders, and now you won't even agree to the definition of capitalism. We can do better than this.

Your definition of capitalism is based on word smithing and deceit.

Anarcho-capitalism necessarily means free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism necessarily equates to free markets and voluntary contracts under private ownership.

Any interjection of force or State control is not capitalism.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

A socialist commune in which everyone agreed under contract to work for the benefit of the commune is fine, however the commune could not rightfully seize a private factory existing next door to it.

Of course. But there's also no one stopping some individuals from said socialist commune from buying the factory, and turning it into a co-op, and gaining capital only to buy the next private factory for the same purpose. Then all the capitalists could, in theory, lose some of their production workers to said co-op that exists with the commune that adheres to private contracts. Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just outlying the possibility of co-existance (ie, Mutualism).

And the water argument is ridiculous on its face since the owner of a well would sell the water, not horde it. Further, its so far removed from reality that debating it is pointless.

You may sell it. But you are not everyone, especially if said traveler had nothing to sell. As ridiculously out of OUR lives as the argument is, I'm sure it has popped up numerous times in history. If not desert/water, then something else of similar function.

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


The owner of the well would sell the water because it is in his best interest to do so.

He gains nothing by hording and everything by selling.

Indeed, he even gains by simply giving the water away if he has enough on hand to do so, since this would gain him the good graces of the people needing the water.

The reason why he would sell the water rather than give it away if the water was in limited supply is not only to acquire profits, but also to ration the water.

Those most in need of getting a drink would be willing to pay the higher prices, while those least in need of a drink would wait until the price comes down.

Under a socialist system, the State would ration the water, not based on need, but based on arbitrary political reasons.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Your definition of capitalism is based on word smithing and deceit.

My definition is 'Private ownership of the means of production.' Nothing more, nothing less. I think you're putting thoughts of extreme leftists into my thoughts. Please don't.

Anarcho-capitalism necessarily means free market capitalism.

Anarcho implies anarchy, which in turn implies, no archy, which in turn implies no hierarchy. Obviously, no hierarchy is impossible, as heirarchy will always exist within family structure among other things. But in a very broad sense, I don't see how capitalism can be equated with anarchy, unless everyone only works for himself, and answers to no one else. Please forgive me if you have a different view on it.

Free market capitalism necessarily equates to free markets and voluntary contracts under private ownership.

Any interjection of force or State control is not capitalism.

I agree, that is fascism.