Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Disadvantages, economic and non-economic

Expand Messages
  • jeo1@frontier.com
    The 5 regular posters in category 2 are Kevin, Charles, Roderick, Sheldon and who else? Jim From: Bill To:
    Message 1 of 140 , Dec 1, 2010
      The 5 regular posters in category 2 are Kevin, Charles, Roderick, Sheldon and who else?

      Jim

      From: "Bill" <erm4you@...>
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:01:27 PM
      Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Disadvantages, economic and non-economic

       the wiki article on left-libertarianism delineates two major strands of left-libertarianism...

      1. one combining classical liberal views of self-ownership with an egalitarian view of economics rooted in common ownership ideals - associated with these scholars: Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, Peter Vallentyne, Michael Otsuka, and David Ellerman.

      2. the other combining classical liberal views of non-aggression with radically "freed markets" and leftist cultural issues - associated with these scholars: Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles Johnson, Brad Spangler, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Sheldon Richman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Arthur Silber, and Gary Chartier.

      of the 9 scholars listed in the article in category #2 - 5 post here fairly regularly and 1 (now deceased) was the originator of the original yahoo group.

      not 1 identified scholar in category #1 is associated with this yahoo group...

      bg

      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com , "xipetotec56" <groups.to.read@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dan Ust wrote:
      >
      > > > First, he's not a libertarian, left, right, or whatever, if he's
      > > > for a basic income guarantee.
      > > >
      > > > [...]
      > > >
      > > > If you agree with Philippe Van Parijs, you are not a libertarian
      > > > of any sort meant in this forum.
      >
      > In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com , Dan Clore <clore@> wrote:
      >
      > > I had somehow gotten the idea that this forum was open to a broad
      > > assortment of libertarians of various types, not restricted to some
      > > purity test that practically none of them could pass.
      >
      > You know, I think Dan Ust's fatwa on the matter was pretty silly, but insisting that libertarianism, properly understood, might call for categorical opposition to government subsidies is not a very strict "purity test." Nor a particularly difficult one to pass: anyone who rejects all forms of government action as illegitimate and destructive will reject that one in particular. If someone does not reject all forms of government action as illegitimate and destructive, then I hardly think that is (ipso facto) a reason to read them out of "libertarianism," whatever that means (not all libertarians are consistent Anarchists); but I do think it's a good reason to say that they are being inconsistently libertarian (all libertarians should be consistent Anarchists, given their professed principles, if they followed them through to their logical conclusion).
      >
      > -C
      >
    • Dan
      But all labor is owned and is unequally distributed. Should those who have more labor be made to pay the rest of us? Regards, Dan From: jeo1@frontier.com
      Message 140 of 140 , Dec 9, 2010
        But all labor is owned and is unequally distributed. Should those who have more labor be made to pay the rest of us?
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: "jeo1@..." <jeo1@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 3:14:02 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] The Notorious B.I.G\Are landowners equivalent to a state?
         

        All land is not owned.

        But rent is not the same as taxes. The state taxes all income, purchases etc. Rent is paid only in exchange for use of the property, it is voluntary and market based.

        I need not pay rent unless I choose to and then I am getting something in exchange. I can pay rent to no one, or to a different property owner if I choose. With the state I have none of these options and I get nothing in return for payment of all the taxes, instead I get the bad things the state does.

        It is not a good analogy.

        From: "Bill" <erm4you@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:13:40 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: The Notorious B.I.G.

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com , jeo1@... wrote:
        >
        > From: "Bill" <erm4you@...>
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 2:59:11 PM
        > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: The Notorious B.I.G.
        >
        > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com , Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
        >
        > > At 08:39 PM 12/6/2010 +0000, you wrote:
        > > >I define a state (as a "Nockian anarchist") as specifically empowered via privilege granting to allow the landowning class to occupy and exclude WITHOUT having to share the economic rent.
        > >
        > >
        > > oh by the way, even the minimal libertarian state is a STATE.
        > >
        > > There's no such thing as a PRO STATE 'nockian ANARCHIST'.
        > >
        >
        > and in your anarchy where all lands are privately held -- from the POV of the right to self-ownership -- what is the difference to the landless between "the state" and a landowner?
        >
        > bg
        >
        >
        > REPLY: Are the "landless" just those who for the moment do not own land? Or are you saying it is a permanent class? If so, why? Maybe the "landless" rent their home, travel, or have their resources, investments and wealth in other things beside land. Maybe they do not work, or have squandered their resources.
        >
        > In your geoist view this mythical "landless" group are all permanent victims of the evil landowners? This is a very simplistic view and not supported by reality.
        >
        > No, someone else owning some land somewhere in the world is not equivalent to a state. A state can tax me, draft me, imprison me, regulate me, steal from me, kill me in war etc none of which a landowner can do. The only thing a landowner can do is prevent me from trespassing on his or her land. A state or even "legitimate local governing agency" has reach and power over me far more than that.
        >
        >

        I was asking about a situation where all land was owned which means you have to pay a landowner to rent access to land somewhere.

        so with regards to a state being able to "tax me" - what is the difference?

        bg


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.