According to these tests I am a libertarian socialist and then a green anarchist. Sounds about right I think.
2 Likes
That was a Monty Python & The Holy Grail reference. I didnāt mean it that meta.
Interesting assessment, Iām definitely an odd fellow- I hate the law, but not all law. Mainly itās abuse and overapplication on some, none on others. I find sovereign citizens dangerous morons. The idea that Iām related in thought to them is repulsive, but Iāve not had many chances to really discuss over the last decade my thoughts so candidly with others who arenāt (for once) creating a chain of replies as if its a contest of snarky assholes trying to shame rather than understand each other. At least, most here.
Iām not saying at all I refuse to work with the current system- Iām trying to explain what Iād ideally like to see, or if there is a way to change the way things are to something new that doesnāt just benefit me.
I am absolutely tired of the concept of borders, and restricting travel over imaginary lines based on sovereignty and paperwork. I am even more tired that since I never fucking asked to be here on earth, that there seems to be nowhere I can go or buy to just be left alone, without having society able to seize the space I have no choice but to exist on from me once Iāve done the requisite work to formally aquire said space.
I want the right to be left the fuck alone somewhere on earth, till I die, regardless of how remote an area that takes form in. The idea that I can never leave the earth, or go somewhere Iāll never be hassled to have removed from me if I donāt KEEP paying someone, itās anathema to me.
The only place Iād be actually free under current law is international waters more than 200 miles out.
2 Likes
Yes- I do know what usufructs are, and liked the idea.
I think most land should be public, open use- which granted, might conflict with the idea Iād like of a place to permanently and irrevocably call my own.
Usufructs are a good thing, Iād like to find more ways of working with things like that.
I have to say- other than 1 directly acerbic commenter- most have actually shut that impulse off for once here- and its damn refreshing. I feel like I can speak, and listen to others all disagreeing and educating and discussing with actual constructive thought in mind.
Itās nice to drop the usual moral flame war bullshit parade here for once and just get people to have a discussion together with real thought.
I agree with how youāre responding to the concepts I discuss under current framework- and I donāt take it as insulting, because I get your exasperation with trying to find a way it could work.
I feel the same way. Iāve never once truly felt at peace or free, because Iāve learned there is no real freedom on earth- everywhere, someone can come after you and kick you out of where you are legally no matter your situation.
I just want a place where money or continued payment from me is not required directly simply for my own existence.
Iām not going to claim my feelings are rational- but Iād like to know what real freedom from chains of society are before I go someday.
1 Like
Not necessarily an example of what you describe, but rather people who more or less want the same thing: http://www.ephemerisle.org/index.php/Ephemerisle
Iāve never been, but a few of my friends have.
1 Like
Between those two quizzes, I got rated a Democratic Libertarian Socialist, which I think is basically accurate.
Personally, when it comes to land ownership, I think Locke was basically right that everything started out unowned, and unowned things can become owned by āmixing your laborā with them, but only when doing so leaves āas much and as goodā for everyone else. Otherwise, the āeveryone elseā needs to be compensated for you taking something from the commons. Easy to see how this applies to fruit from a tree in the forest, compared to fruit in a planted orchard. But since weāre not making more land, it would be unjust for someone to just own land forever without regard to what everyone else loses by no longer having access to it.
The modest proposal about dueling to gain ownership is basically a return to right of conquest, which the worldās nation states stopped formally recognizing after WWI when they acknowledged how much horror it created, and frankly how it was no longer profitable in a world where the value of land mainly comes from improvements to it instead of the land itself. To make anything like that workable, since no one wants their own grandparents murdered by a random young guy, people would need to be allowed to appoint a champion or something, which would quickly evolve into a protection racket and/or insurance market.
My own take is something like: in a world where society is so fully capable of making sure everyone is housed, there is a right to housing, but not to any specific house. Society can and should require people, especially those living in homes of above-median value, to contribute to community upkeep as a condition of continuing to live in those homes. In an ideal world, my first proposal to achieve that might be to institute a UBI equal to the cost of ownership of a home at, say, the 20th percentile of home cost, combined with progressive property tax rights for higher valued homes to offset it in a tax-revenue-neutral way. Then people are guaranteed enough money to live somewhere even if it means they have to move, without inconveniencing anyone who isnāt already substantially above median income. Iām a big fan in general of revenue-neutral tax systems for creating market signals to reduce inequality and other social problems without central planning.
Hobbes thought much the same thing if I remember correctly.
Congratulations - you have reinvented slavery for debts.
I think thatās what it boils down to. It is the easiest (and most effective option) to recover unpaid taxes/debts.
Precisely because it fills (most) property owners with such horror and because unlike other assets people who donāt want to pay canāt just pick it up and take it away.
4 Likes
In UK ācommunity serviceā is a common court sentence for those guilty of minor things that do not warrant a prison sentence or as an alternative to it. At present it is set by the court and is not āvaluedā in relation to the size of the debt if the offence one is guilty of is not paying debts such as the community charge (local property tax equivalent, broadly) and so the value never gets back to the local authority which has lost the budgeted income. Slavery for debts implies a n every increasing debt that can never be repaid no matter how much labour is expended. Given a choice between bailiffs confiscating chattels or eviction from/repossession of oneās home, and community service some might see a fixed tariff of labour for defined local property tax debts (i.e. you know how much labour before you commit to the transaction) as a viable alternative.
Iām not actually proposing it, just positing it as a thought experiment, as an adjunct to current practice of repossession/eviction. And yes there would need to be detailed safeguards (as briefly noted above) to ensure it did not become mandatory or enforced in such a way as to become a form of bonded labour.
Iām pretty sure that most* libertarian socialists agree more with the Marxās theory of property over Lockeās. Libertarian in this sense has no relationship with American libertarianism, which makes sense considering that libertarian socialism existed decades before Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were born.
It is called libertarian socialism as it is in opposition to state socialism, but came from the same ideas. American libertarianism came from 19th century liberalism, which was not like 21st century liberalism.
* I would say all, but Iām sure someone would point out an exception if I did.
5 Likes
I admit itās been a while since Iāve read Locke and Marx, and I know thereās a lot of more recent philosophical development Iām not knolwedgable enough about. But, Iām not sure those two theories are actually in conflict, at least not necessarily.
Marx points out, correctly, that property relations are socially constructed/defined/enforced. The society that does so can change them. Locke points out that everything started out unowned, and now many/most things are owned, and human labor and effort seem to be a central part of how that happened; plus, things often have complicated ownership histories, and voluntary exchanges we generally consider just, whereas violent exchanges we generally consider unjust. Locke then focuses on the principle that individuals have the right of freedom of exchange, use, and disposal with respect to ones own property. In contrast, Marx focuses on the contingent nature of property relations in a world where in practice you only have something as long as everyone else lets you have it. He points out that a lot more things are unjust in a capitalist society than straight-up theft and violence. I canāt say I disagree with either Lockeās ideals or Marxās understanding of human nature and human societies as they actually exist.
I donāt think either of them really do a good job dealing with human capital, and whether we own ourselves when our talents and genetics and circumstances of birth have nothing to do with any actions we take. Property is complicated, and I donāt expect any one thinker to hit every important point.
To bring it back to the thread topic: If I were to put in terms of a Platonic social contract, the reason I believe society owes its people housing is that in the absence of society, those people would have just built whatever housing they could wherever they damn well pleased, and it is society that prevents that, by the force of its laws.
The USās founders were very careful to only phrase negative rights; they were very clear that as a matter of justice, from first principles, governments donāt grant rights, people already have them, and they set limits on government to keep government from infringing on them (yes, yes, Ned Stark also had a piece of paper, I know, they were idealists in many ways). Positive rights, like a right to housing, canāt work that way. Instead, I would argue that in the absence of society, people would have no restrictions on the freedom to seek housing for themselves. Society imposes many, many limits on how it lets people meet their own needs, and therefore is morally obligated to compensate those who suffer more from those limits.
2 Likes
So leaving the totally theoretical aside, even sidestepping the question of land ownership, how do you decide who gets to live where? Person X wants only to live alone and undisturbed, but there is a group of nomads whose herds graze on the land X wants to build their house on. X and the nomads come to an agreement. Then more people want to live where X now lives. They ignore the nomads and just build a village. The nomads respond with force. Who can be said to be ārightā in this scenario?
1 Like
We try to avoid that situation.
And I know that what you described was basically the setup for the Unabomber terrorist campaign, so yes, I do take it seriously.
4 Likes
I think the issue is that Locke was just full of shit. People do not acquire property by mixing their labour with unowned things:
If just donāt think mixing labour with the wilderness has anything to do with property. I think Locke was trying to start with the premise: āIf you catch a fish youāre allowed to eat it, right?ā and build to the conclusion, āSo itās only moral that I get to live on this large estate and buy stocks in slavers.ā There was a weird twist between those two things.
9 Likes
He basically was just trying to justify his own actions, reallyā¦
6 Likes
At some point it occurred to me that reading philosophy is basically reading someoneās diary. This was especially helpful because it made me read my own writings as my diary.
7 Likes
Not always. Some are actually interested in doing more than wanking and showing off how clever they areā¦ some actually do care about trying to hash this shit out. But yeah, lots of intellectual wanking off, too.
Ha! Or a transcript of someone who is high!
5 Likes
To me the essence of philosophy is mistaking your inner demons for a problem with the universe and then trying to solve that problem. So if someone is actually trying to solve real problems that really exist, Iād tend to say they arenāt a real philosopher. 
4 Likes
We have those. We call them co-ops. One owns shares based on size of ones unit.
They are always at the mercy of the people with too much time on their hands who run for the board.
2 Likes
I believe in the power of the state to regulate markets and ensure social Justice.
There is no such as a free laissez fair market, only one being controlled by its richest and influential members.
I consider libertarianism a crock. Without government of the people acting on behalf of those without money, influence or power of violence, things break down to nothing more than āmight makes rightā. Freedoms are ultimately destroyed under such conditions.
I guess that makes me progressive
3 Likes
I lost faith in that 15 years ago. That was under a Labour Party government, not Conservative or Republican.
Agreed
If you are assuming that libertarian socialism is related to libertarianism then you are making the same kind of mistake as people who think that national socialism is socialism. Both the Nazis and the libertarians stole a name that was already being used then twisted and distorted it beyond recognition.
6 Likes
You could defenestrate them, but then who are you going to call to fix the window?
1 Like
