Carson wrote an instructive short piece on what I would call a sort of
"functional fusion" of Rothbardian and usufruct approaches in the
context of revolutionary redistribution of property.

"Libertarian Property and Privatization: An Alternative Paradigm"
http://www.mutualist.org/id45.html

I would urge you to read his book, "Studies in Mutualist Political
Economy" (available free online as e-text):

http://mutualist.org/id47.html

The most essential Rothbard, IMO, is the book "For a New Liberty: The
Libertarian Manifesto" (available free online as e-text):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Just to round things out a bit, let me mention that early "an-cap"
books that predated Rothbard's FaNL include a couple by what I would
call "early post-Objectivist" thinkers who remained essentially
Randian but followed Randian principles to the idea of statelessness,
in defiance of Rand...

Linda and Morris Tannehill's
"The Market for Liberty" (available free online as e-text):
http://www.mises.org/story/2220

Jarret Wollstein's
"Society Without Coercion" (available free online as e-text):
http://www.mises.org/books/societycoercion.pdf

BTW, Konkin credited Wollstein with coining the term
"anarcho-capitalism" when he defected from Randian orthodoxy circa
1969. The term can, IMO, thus be seen as an anomalous cultural
artifact of the Rand cult, a hangover the movement still hasn't
recovered from (given how heavily Rand pushed the "free market" =
"capitalism" notion). Rothbard had reportedly already been an
anarchist since 1950, if I recall correctly.


On 9/29/07, steohawk <steohawk@...> wrote:
>
> 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?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>