Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose even for libertarians, it's
sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes property. My
personal theory is that counter-economics will naturally lead to true
property rights.

--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Spangler"
<brad_spangler@...> wrote:
>
> That depends on how one defines the two terms as well as how firm of a
> grasp on their own ideology the proponent of it it has in some cases.
>
> The principal ideological difference, though, is property theory.
>
> Mutualists advocate a usufruct approach to property law, Rothbardian
> an-caps advocate Rothbardian property theory (a radically anti-state
> version of Lockean property theory -- call it Lockeanism 2.0) and
> non-Rothbardian an-caps tend to have no theory of justice in property
> beyond existing property titles. Then there's the geoists, but I'm not
> going there right now...
>
> Mutualists and those Rothbardians that get along well with them tend
> to look at the two property theories as two seperate legal doctrines
> that could amicably compete in a stateless free market for arbitration
> services (i.e. "law" and "courts"). It may be a bit more involved than
> "metric vs. English", but you hopefully get the drift.
>
> There are other differences. Many are just cultural or terminological,
> though, IMO.
>
> In academic terms, one could count the economic dispute over
> subjective value theory (an-caps) versus the labor theory of value
> (mutualists). If we take Carson's work on the labor theory of value as
> the best modern take on it and the "plumb-line" for modern mutualist
> political economy doctrine, this becomes an irrelevant difference in
> practical terms. Carson's understanding of the labor theory of value
> that he promotes in his book is heavily subjectivized. LTV stops being
> a rationale for statist forcible redistribution of wealth and instead
> describes/predicts how free markets will tend to even out wealth
> naturally (a tendency or opinion subjectivists can also hold -- we
> just don't incorporate that into an economic theory of value).
>
> On 9/28/07, steohawk <steohawk@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there.
> >
> > Perhaps I don't understand mutualism, but why is it considered
> > different from anarcho-capitalism? Don't mutualists believe that by
> > removing the state and economic intervention, greater economic
> > equality would naturally result in the free market? If that's so,
then
> > how are they different than Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists?
> >
> >
>