What do you guys think of left libertarians?

[labmath2]

I saw this video on youtube and i think he makes an interesting argument, i wonder what you guys think.

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I'm at around 15 mins and I can't take anymore. If they want to believe this drivel that's fine. I just want to know if they'll leave the rest of us alone. From what I've seen so far they will not. 

Why are they called libertarians? They're just communists. 

[TheRobin]

meh, I didn't even et past 6 minutes...

 

some things are just factually incorrect or logically invalid. The rest is then just arbitrary "I'm afraid of x happening, therefore we mut use force to stop it... "rabble rabble rabble)

 

again, meh...

[lee1138]

I didn't even make it to the 2 minute mark..  He's obfuscating what property is and how it is acquired.  The very premise of his argument is void of fact and logic.

[LovePrevails]

 

Why are they called libertarians? They're just communists. 

 

 

This usage of the word libertarian, like anarchism as a description of left-wing philosophy pre-dates the use of those terms to describe volunantarism.

 

This is why I always describe myself as a voluntarist rather than a libertarian. 

[James Dean]

I was strongly in favor of socialism (it's hard not to be with 12+ years of government schools) then I discovered this kind of "left-libertarianism." It's kind of a TVP or Zeitgeist kind of approach and I devoured their literature and videos for a while. This lead me to FDR for some reason, and it rekindled the love of reason and an unquenchable thirst for truth in my heart that has made my life orders of magnitude more fulfilling and happy than it had ever been. I think left-libertarianism is silly fundamentally, but it (and atheism) was a good "statist methadone" to wean me off the violent fantasies that I can now see only served to satiate the desires of corrupt individuals around me. 

 

My attitude is, and has been since finding FDR, those who abide and advocate the NAP are my brothers and sisters. These "left-libertarians" seem to abide by the NAP and advocate anarchy, silly though their ideas may be, I still feel they share (at least some small part) of our cause for liberty.

 

While less popular than the traditional "ayn rand" route to voluntarism, anarcho-capitalism, and FDR, the "Noam Chomsky" route can be just as effective at waking people up and getting them to take the red pill to get out of this matrix we all find ourselves in.

 

Just thought i'd share my experience with you guys.

[ZetaMan]

I find "Left Libertarians" are more capable of making arguments from actual Human concerns. And I'm getting suspicious of peoples' inability to disgest and refute arguments contrary to their beliefs around here.

 

Given this to'ing and fro'ing, I find myself drifting towards authoritarianism again.  At least within that framework you wont have open warfare between Anarcho-Capitalists and Communists, and all their myriad branches, like in some godforsaken Middle Eastern hell hole.

[cab21]

That lack of hierarchy is better for human's happiness, what is the research behind that?

 

people can sell labor, so if someone sells labor, the person who bought the labor gets the result of the labor. if the person wants the result of the labor, the person could do that instead of sell the labor. does the left have a theory that a person should sell the labor , and get the result of the labor as well, instead of the person who paid for the labor? or is the theory that people should not sell labor in the first place?

 

would freedomain radio be better with some worker takeover instead of stefan molyneux doing shows and content?

[Andrew79]

does the left have a theory that a person should sell the labor , and get the result of the labor as well, instead of the person who paid for the labor?

Yes, this.The basic Marxist theory is that workers are exploited because they're not being paid the full value of their labour.

[ZetaMan]

Ancaps and ancoms can only achieve what they want in a stateless environment anyway. I wouldn't pay for a military force to destroy some commune's experiment -- if you wanna try to live without money, be my guest.

 

If you wanna talk about human concerns and warfare, I have no idea how states are helpful. The middle east is a hell hole largely because of US foreign policy anyway; it's the statists who are killing each other not the anarchists.

You wouldn't, however, sit idly by while a bunch of loons ransack your property in the name of "liberating" your property - I safely assume.

 

And as for the Middle East - Western molestation didn't help, but you also have indigenous rivalries. There are States that overlook (and, to a great degree, suppress) the rampant warfare, but those are a recycling of "kings of the hill". The U.S. and other empires try to install their allied factions in that position, but not always with success.

[PatrickC]

The 'Left' cannot help themselves. Whether they call themselves anarchists or not. They want to enforce their will on things, like controlling or abolishing markets or property. Things that occur quite naturally amongst ourselves.

 

However many different ways the Left would like to present themselves. They are fundamentally authoritarian and have a very well documented history of systemic murder. I have little time for these people that currently dominate the world with their wild verbosity. Time to point out who they really are.

[nathanm]

Awww yeah, I made it long enough to hear COHERSION.  Yessss!!!

[cab21]

The basic Marxist theory is that workers are exploited because they're not being paid the full value of their labour

 

the full value of labor is whatever a person sells for labor for, and whatever the labor was bought for.

 

how else could the full value of labor be determined?

if its the sale price, then the value goes up or down depending on what the sale is.

if it's indepedent of the sale price, then the value can be more or less than the sale price.

 

i thought a marxist theory was people getting according to needs or something.

if people get according to work, would that mean that more productive workers are oppressing  the less productive workers by gaining more resources by being  more productive?

[ZetaMan]

Cab21:

As a former Marxist I can confirm that "Each according to his need, each according to his ability" is nothing more than a slogan. The fundamental grounds of Marxism is that, as you quoted, the full value of the labour isn't rewarded to the worker (Alienation from the Effect of Labour). The full reward for the labour is unrestricted equal access to the product of labour. Technically, that doesn't make sense as a factory of 10 workers producing 100 widgets a day aught to bring home 10 widgets a day - yet they need more than one type of product, and then it just becomes absurd.

 

A word to the wise here: You can't argue fundamental arguments (axioms) for social systems. You'll be arguing 'til your gray and old, and it would probably be the cause for you graying much sooner. What you want to do is argue Marxism in the area of what happens to people after about 3 years into the experiment.

[cab21]

Cab21:

As a former Marxist I can confirm that "Each according to his need, each according to his ability" is nothing more than a slogan. The fundamental grounds of Marxism is that, as you quoted, the full value of the labour isn't rewarded to the worker (Alienation from the Effect of Labour). The full reward for the labour is unrestricted equal access to the product of labour. Technically, that doesn't make sense as a factory of 10 workers producing 100 widgets a day aught to bring home 10 widgets a day - yet they need more than one type of product, and then it just becomes absurd.

 

A word to the wise here: You can't argue fundamental arguments (axioms) for social systems. You'll be arguing 'til your gray and old, and it would probably be the cause for you graying much sooner. What you want to do is argue Marxism in the area of what happens to people after about 3 years into the experiment.

 

 

How do the Marxists come to the conclusion about some human need for equality? That seems to make humans hostage to the coveting of others.

 

that a bunch of people who don't know how to farm, get to ruin farmland over the 1 person that does know how to farm, seems like a death sentence, which looking at communism, they have a track record of death sentences.

 

what examples are there of this left libertarian marxist expirements that have gone years into the expirement?

i think i have read of stalin and other marxist statists killings libertarian marxists as part of purges.

[LovePrevails]

I'm ok with people on the left at least on an individual basis because they actually give a shit and are pretty well informed compared to most people 

 

some can be pretty annoying and single-minded but others have just been given the wrong coordinates - I was one

[Andrew79]

the full value of labor is whatever a person sells for labor for, and whatever the labor was bought for.

Marxists split labour into two categories: necessary labour and surplus labour.Let's say you make 8 widgets a day. The first four cover your cost to the employer - that's necessary labour. The next four provide profit to your employer - that's surplus labour.Marxists believe that the surplus labour is the exploitation.

i thought a marxist theory was people getting according to needs or something.

It's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and although Marx popularised it, it was a French socialist slogan.It means to break the link between production and consumption. In other words what someone produces should have no relation to what they can consume.This would work by pooling everything that's been produced and then giving it out on the basis of need.

[cab21]

Marxists split labour into two categories: necessary labour and surplus labour.Let's say you make 8 widgets a day. The first four cover your cost to the employer - that's necessary labour. The next four provide profit to your employer - that's surplus labour.Marxists believe that the surplus labour is the exploitation.

 

 

that seems like a very weird way to  calculate

 

how do the widgets provide profit, they have even been sold yet at this stage of production?

 

what if the person gets paid per widget instead of some wage?

 

a product can't be sold for it's exact cost of production, what if the product does not even sell for such a price? even if things are overbought, what happens if not enough gets produced to fulfill the order?

 

It's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and although Marx popularised it, it was a French socialist slogan.It means to break the link between production and consumption. In other words what someone produces should have no relation to what they can consume.This would work by pooling everything that's been produced and then giving it out on the basis of need.

 

 

 

how is "need" calculated?

 

that seems like a recipe for people "needing" more than they produce"?

[Andrew79]

that seems like a very weird way to  calculate

Yes, Marx contradicted himself on this in the last volume of Das Kapital, leading to him stopping work on it.But he didn't have the integrity to admit he was wrong. 

how do the widgets provide profit, they have even been sold yet at this stage of production?

That doesn't matter, the amount of profit the employer makes lets you work out how exploited the worker is, but just as long as the employer intends to profit he's being exploited.

what if the person gets paid per widget instead of some wage?

Same principle, the exploitation would be the profit per widget. 

a product can't be sold for it's exact cost of production, what if the product does not even sell for such a price? even if things are overbought, what happens if not enough gets produced to fulfill the order?

Tough luck for the employer. He intended to profit, so he was still exploiting the worker, it wasn't the worker's fault he failed. 

how is "need" calculated?

Councils, planning committees, and the like. 

that seems like a recipe for people "needing" more than they produce"?

It would, but because people don't get to decide what they need it goes the other way - people slack off instead.

[Alan C.]

Left-libertarians tend to fall into two groups:

 

1. One group opposes the State because they see it as the enabler of private property, which they consider to be a form of oppression. This group consists of the typical dishevelled, lowlife malcontents who smash windows, flip cars, vandalize buildings, and set fires. They're juvenille, self-serving hypocrites whose goals are social justice and "fairness" (whatever that means). They know nothing about economic calculation, and they don't care. They want all of society reduced to the lowest common denominator.

 

2. The other group refers to themselves as left-libertarians for historical consistency and because they're "anti-capitalist," but they actually have more in common with anarcho-capitalists. They don't define 'capitalism' as Austrian economists do; they define it as a system of State-granted privilege to politically-connected groups. They prefer to use terms such as 'markets,' 'market anarchism,' and 'freed markets.' This group isn't petty and ignorant like the other group, and includes people like Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman, and Gary Chartier.

 

I should also mention that some left-libertarians ascribe to a property rights theory based upon 'occupation and use' (ie. you 'own' only what is in your immediate possession) rather than homesteading. I don't agree with 'occupation and use' because it would incentivize overconsumption and make capital accumulation virtually impossible.

[ZetaMan]

How do the Marxists come to the conclusion about some human need for equality? That seems to make humans hostage to the coveting of others.

 

that a bunch of people who don't know how to farm, get to ruin farmland over the 1 person that does know how to farm, seems like a death sentence, which looking at communism, they have a track record of death sentences.

 

what examples are there of this left libertarian marxist expirements that have gone years into the expirement?

i think i have read of stalin and other marxist statists killings libertarian marxists as part of purges.

See, this is what I'm getting at here. Fundamentals. Everything starts with a fundamental - even the NAP starts with a fundamental. You can't justify a fundamental, it's merely the basis for the rest of the logic. There's nothing in The Communist Manifesto that makes an argument for why Humans need equality - it's a given.

[Clay]

I don't want to generalize all Left-Libertarians, but I think this thread from the r/Anarchism subreddit provides some meaningful insight as to what most of the Left-Wing "Anarchists" consider acceptable behavior.  

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/2183oj/shoplifting/

[fractional slacker]

As with the concept of justice, if you have to preface 'libertarian' with left or right, it seems you aren't really a libertarian but you wish others to think you are.

Same goes for the latest non sensical terms du jour: brutalist, humanist.

[ZetaMan]

Clay provides conclusive proof that Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Communists cannot share the same planet in the absence of a State that doesn't give a shit about either ideology. "Property is theft", and as the twisted genius Adolf Hitler said: (paraphrased) "You can't commit treason against the treasonous"... or.. you can't steal from a thief.

 

I personally don't know what camp I'll fall into if it became a matter of the two polar ideologies fighting over a region. It'd rest entirely on my own situation at the time. Screw morals.

[Alan C.]

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists by Murray Rothbard (1970)

[cab21]

That doesn't matter, the amount of profit the employer makes lets you work out how exploited the worker is, but just as long as the employer intends to profit he's being exploited.

 

why is the employees profit ok, but the employers profit not ok?

what about these nonprofits which still pay executives high salaries and benefits, but the employers don't have the intention of profits?

 

Same principle, the exploitation would be the profit per widget.

 

so this encourages people building robots and not employing widget builders at all.

the profit is because of the tools the employees use, such as equipment or training provided by the employer. 

 

Tough luck for the employer. He intended to profit, so he was still exploiting the worker, it wasn't the worker's fault he failed.

 

the worker intends to profit, and does, when he gets his paycheck.

it's not the employers fault if the worker considers the workers paycheck a failure.

the worker used the tools of the employer to even do the job in the first place to even get a paycheck

 

Councils, planning committees, and the like.

 

does competence play a role in here, or is it just a bunch of people who don't know how to run things voting ignorantly?

 

It would, but because people don't get to decide what they need it goes the other way - people slack off instead.  

 

 

If autonomy and happiness is important, and people not deciding needs) or use of means of production being determined by vote) and people slack off, then people would not be happy, and the goal of human needs and human happiness has failed.

 

having a philosophy for human needs, that does not ( and cannot) meet human needs, seems like a fatal flaw.

 

See, this is what I'm getting at here. Fundamentals. Everything starts with a fundamental - even the NAP starts with a fundamental. You can't justify a fundamental, it's merely the basis for the rest of the logic. There's nothing in The Communist Manifesto that makes an argument for why Humans need equality - it's a given.

 

 

the results have not been giving,

NAP is not a fundamental in objectivism, looks like ayn rand makes a critisim of libertarians trying to make NAP a fundamental.

[Andrew79]

why is the employees profit ok, but the employers profit not ok?

The employee's wage isn't profit, it's his living costs.

what about these nonprofits which still pay executives high salaries and benefits, but the employers don't have the intention of profits?

The high pay would be treated as profit.

so this encourages people building robots and not employing widget builders at all.

Not even that I'm afraid, because the person would more than likely need both extra capital and workers to help build the robots (the capital for new businesses comes from planning committees).What tends to happen when the incentives for profit are removed is that while some people will look for ways to get round it, the majority will just let themselves become dumbed down and lose their creative and entrepreneurial drive. 

the worker intends to profit, and does, when he gets his paycheck.it's not the employers fault if the worker considers the workers paycheck a failure.the worker used the tools of the employer to even do the job in the first place to even get a paycheck

The worker doesn't work to profit, he works so he can live (pay his rent, put food on the table, etc).It's the employer's fault because he controls access to the means of production, when it should be the workers themselves who control it.

does competence play a role in here, or is it just a bunch of people who don't know how to run things voting ignorantly?

They'd typically be chosen by vote, in other words they'd be politicians. But due to the enormity (impossibility?) of the task, I don't think anyone could do a competent job at it.  

having a philosophy for human needs, that does not ( and cannot) meet human needs, seems like a fatal flaw.

I believe the philosophy's primary purpose is to attack the successful, anything else is an afterthought.

[cab21]

 

the employee's wage isn't profit, it's his living costs.

 

how can a wage be a living cost

some people get 10$ a hour, others are getting 100$ an hour and so on. living costs are under 10$ an hour.

 

seems like with this, people with bigger families having higher living costs, so two people making the same wage, and one has surplus and the other does not, because one choose to have a family and the other made different choices.

 

The high pay would be treated as profit.

 

and if people don't want to do the job otherwise, is the company just supposed to fall apart and not be able to do it's mission?

 

Not even that I'm afraid, because the person would more than likely need both extra capital and workers to help build the robots (the capital for new businesses comes from planning committees).What tends to happen when the incentives for profit are removed is that while some people will look for ways to get round it, the majority will just let themselves become dumbed down and lose their creative and entrepreneurial drive.

 

would the workers plan to make robots to help make a post scarcity world? it seems like technology would help out in equality, so worker committees would use to to free other pursuits?

 

The worker doesn't work to profit, he works so he can live (pay his rent, put food on the table, etc).It's the employer's fault because he controls access to the means of production, when it should be the workers themselves who control it.

 

workers have bank and savings accounts, making them capitalists as well.

this separation of worker from capital provider seems false

what does it say about self employed, is a self employed worker with a bank account exploiting himself in this theory?

plenty of money goes to paying for leisure goods that are not about essentials, going for luxaries instead of frugality .

 

the workers can buy means of production with their wages, or choose to work where they own their own means of production instead of using others means of production. the worker must see profit in using someone elses means of production rather than their own. why not become a enterpreneur if someone is so intent on using his own means of production?

 

 

They'd typically be chosen by vote, in other words they'd be politicians. But due to the enormity (impossibility?) of the task, I don't think anyone could do a competent job at it.

capitalists can do a competant job at creating farms that creates a abundance of food, i guess a socialist vote would make it impossible to fit in equality with creating a abundance of food.

 

I believe the philosophy's primary purpose is to attack the successful, anything else is an afterthought.

 

it does succeed at attacking success

[Andrew79]

how can a wage be a living costsome people get 10$ a hour, others are getting 100$ an hour and so on. living costs are under 10$ an hour.

People don't really want to work for any longer than's needed to cover their living costs, essentially they're held hostage by their employer because he controls access to the means of production so he forces them to work longer than they want. 

seems like with this, people with bigger families having higher living costs, so two people making the same wage, and one has surplus and the other does not, because one choose to have a family and the other made different choices.

Yeah, in our current society that would mean the person with higher living costs would need to work more. But in the Marxist socialist paradise it would not, as the family would be provided with what they needed regardless of their size. 

and if people don't want to do the job otherwise, is the company just supposed to fall apart and not be able to do it's mission?

There would be a new breed of man who would happily work for the good of society rather than his own self-interest. 

would the workers plan to make robots to help make a post scarcity world? it seems like technology would help out in equality, so worker committees would use to to free other pursuits?

This certainly seems to be the goal of the new communists (the zeitgeisters). 

workers have bank and savings accounts, making them capitalists as well.this separation of worker from capital provider seems false

It's not the capital itself that makes a capitalist, it's control over the means of production. For example, if you save and buy a new house and new car, that's fine. But if you save and use it to create a business then you're controlling the means of production and exploiting those that work for you.

what does it say about self employed, is a self employed worker with a bank account exploiting himself in this theory?

No, they believe self-employment is a good thing. But as soon as you take on another worker you become an evil capitalist.

plenty of money goes to paying for leisure goods that are not about essentials, going for luxaries instead of frugality.

Yes, if people are encouraged to spend rather than save capital, their money would be frittered away (and they'd be no savings to help build the means of production, leading to a long-term lack of growth). 

the workers can buy means of production with their wages, or choose to work where they own their own means of production instead of using others means of production. the worker must see profit in using someone elses means of production rather than their own. why not become a enterpreneur if someone is so intent on using his own means of production?

The worker's don't realise they're being exploited, they accept their place in society without realising the difference between them and their boss is artificial and should be torn down. 

capitalists can do a competant job at creating farms that creates a abundance of food, i guess a socialist vote would make it impossible to fit in equality with creating a abundance of food.

Yes, with no private means of controlling food production, it would be very scarce in any sort of socialist utopia.

[cab21]

People don't really want to work for any longer than's needed to cover their living costs, essentially they're held hostage by their employer because he controls access to the means of production so he forces them to work longer than they want.

 

people work for all sorts of reasons, how does one person know whats best for another and what that other person wants? if there is equality, each person should be able to choose what the person works for, how long, and what the person receives in return for the work.

 

 

Yeah, in our current society that would mean the person with higher living costs would need to work more. But in the Marxist socialist paradise it would not, as the family would be provided with what they needed regardless of their size.

 

how does the society get the resources to do this?

 

 

There would be a new breed of man who would happily work for the good of society rather than his own self-interest.

 

how to they propose this new breed of man will come into existance? good of society and individual autonomy seems like a contradiction,since the good of society would not be individualistic and would turn into factions.

 

This certainly seems to be the goal of the new communists (the zeitgeisters).

 

fair goal, capitalism will do it better, current socialist statist policies hold back technology. 

 

It's not the capital itself that makes a capitalist, it's control over the means of production. For example, if you save and buy a new house and new car, that's fine. But if you save and use it to create a business then you're controlling the means of production and exploiting those that work for you.

 

if money from the business less living expenses is put back into the business to grow the business, and it's no longer called profit in accounting, is that ok in their system?

a house or car seem just as much means of production as the tools of the job in a business. looking at earthships, looks like those can be energy positive houses.

 

No, they believe self-employment is a good thing. But as soon as you take on another worker you become an evil capitalist.

 

why would a worker , who does not want to take responsibiltity for running a business, not be able to choose to be a worker, knowing that working would make him happier than having the responsibilty of running the business?

 

Yes, if people are encouraged to spend rather than save capital, their money would be frittered away (and they'd be no savings to help build the means of production, leading to a long-term lack of growth).

 

capitalism encourages the saving and investment of capital, going for long term growth and more wealthyer future.

looks like communism encourages spending capital to not have profits, something that does not allow room for emergencies.

 

The worker's don't realise they're being exploited, they accept their place in society without realising the difference between them and their boss is artificial and should be torn down.

 

the boss has a responsibility that the worker does not have, and that the worker chose not to take. the worker can be riding on the skillset of the boss, without the worker would not have the job. the difference in responsibility is real, the difference in competence is real as well. the division of labor allows people of different skillsets and desires to get good fits and allows for competitive advantage.

 

Yes, with no private means of controlling food production, it would be very scarce in any sort of socialist utopia.

seems they can have people die off for the greater good of society, and then the more selfish ones stay alive, then they have to go towards a new breed of man all over again.

[labmath2]

The property right argument is an incomplete one by any standard in my opinion. If it is the case that i can homestead, what conditions are necessary for me to do that? Can i cut down a tree in a forest and afterwards lay claim to the whole forest because i mixed in my labor with it?

 

I think we can all agree being the first to fish in a lake does not make you the owner of the lake, but why should you own a land simply because you planted and harvested from it first?

 

If it is the case that i own myself (the self as property and owner), can i sell myself or am i a special case of property that cannot be bargained with? Do i own my offspring as they are the product of my work?

 

While this is an extreme case, albeit possible, what happens when all land has been homesteaded? Would that not mean i cannot decide whether i pay rent or not, but can only decide who i pay rent to? 

 

I think the idea of self autonomy and occupancy and use solve some of these problems, but in doing so create others.

[Andrew79]

people work for all sorts of reasons, how does one person know whats best for another and what that other person wants? if there is equality, each person should be able to choose what the person works for, how long, and what the person receives in return for the work.

Knowing what's best for everyone is what collectivism is all about.The aim of Marxism is to abolish hierarchy, not establish equality. 

how does the society get the resources to do this?

 Hoping enough people decide to actually do some work. 

how to they propose this new breed of man will come into existance? good of society and individual autonomy seems like a contradiction,since the good of society would not be individualistic and would turn into factions.

Marx believed that the conditions of communism would cause the new man to come into existence, by people rationally thinking about life.

if money from the business less living expenses is put back into the business to grow the business, and it's no longer called profit in accounting, is that ok in their system?

No, if there are any workers then they're being exploited, the profit just provides a means to calculate by how much.

a house or car seem just as much means of production as the tools of the job in a business. looking at earthships, looks like those can be energy positive houses.

Ok, if anything, regardless of what it was, was used as the means of production, then any workers using it would be being exploited. 

why would a worker , who does not want to take responsibiltity for running a business, not be able to choose to be a worker, knowing that working would make him happier than having the responsibilty of running the business?

He'd need educating on the fact he's being exploited then. 

capitalism encourages the saving and investment of capital, going for long term growth and more wealthyer future.looks like communism encourages spending capital to not have profits, something that does not allow room for emergencies.

Not just for emergencies, for anything that requires capital like the building and up-keeping of new factories/infrastructure/etc. 

the boss has a responsibility that the worker does not have, and that the worker chose not to take. the worker can be riding on the skillset of the boss, without the worker would not have the job. the difference in responsibility is real, the difference in competence is real as well. the division of labor allows people of different skillsets and desires to get good fits and allows for competitive advantage.

Yes. But exploitation.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The property right argument is an incomplete one by any standard in my opinion. If it is the case that i can homestead, what conditions are necessary for me to do that? Can i cut down a tree in a forest and afterwards lay claim to the whole forest because i mixed in my labor with it?

 

I think we can all agree being the first to fish in a lake does not make you the owner of the lake, but why should you own a land simply because you planted and harvested from it first?

 

If it is the case that i own myself (the self as property and owner), can i sell myself or am i a special case of property that cannot be bargained with? Do i own my offspring as they are the product of my work?

 

While this is an extreme case, albeit possible, what happens when all land has been homesteaded? Would that not mean i cannot decide whether i pay rent or not, but can only decide who i pay rent to? 

 

I think the idea of self autonomy and occupancy and use solve some of these problems, but in doing so create others.

How did you mix your labor with the whole forest?

 

Why shouldn't you own land because you planted and harvested from it first? It is a necessary condition that you have some ownership over the land in order to harvest it. It is usually only the arrogance of socialists who think they have some magical claim over unowned land that entitles them to even challenge the ownership of a farmer who took the land and made something useful with it. 

 

Yes you can sell yourself. Why not? You own your children in a sense but don't jump to conclusions because you also own the moral responsibility for your children which you created. If you were to do something wrong to the child then you also own THAT.

 

If all the land has been homesteaded and for some reason it is all rented out (like states) then I guess you have to pay rent. If you're paying rent then you're paying for some value that's been created on the land. If it's just some guy who drew a line and said "pay in order to use this" then it's just some statist loon. 

[cab21]

Knowing what's best for everyone is what collectivism is all about.The aim of Marxism is to abolish hierarchy, not establish equality.

 

with collectivism its no longer about individual sovereinty.

 

 

Hoping enough people decide to actually do some work.

 

this seems just as exploitive as any capitalism could be. capitalists hope there will be people willing, and able to do any work the employer hires for.

 

Marx believed that the conditions of communism would cause the new man to come into existence, by people rationally thinking about life.

 

did he do any research about this? 

 

He'd need educating on the fact he's being exploited then.

 

so if he thinks being exploited is a good trade for not needing to have the responsibility of being a owner, is he allowed such self sovereinty? the owner would have a lot more education than than the worker, so the worker would need years of education to catch up on knoledge of how to even run a company. 

 

Yes. But exploitation.

 

How do they define exploitation in a way where their own theory is not exploitation?

[Andrew79]

EDIT - @cab21: I'll have to answer you tomorrow, I need my sleep now.

The property right argument is an incomplete one by any standard in my opinion. If it is the case that i can homestead, what conditions are necessary for me to do that? Can i cut down a tree in a forest and afterwards lay claim to the whole forest because i mixed in my labor with it?

If you about homesteading and mixing your labour, then I'm sure you know the answer to this. 

I think we can all agree being the first to fish in a lake does not make you the owner of the lake, but why should you own a land simply because you planted and harvested from it first?

Because you spent your time and energy on it. Cause and effect.And if they don't own it who does? Why is anyone else's claim greater?To ask everyone else if they have their permission to use it is impossible.Plus, if we don't have the right to control anything except our own bodies, the human race wouldn't last very long. So simply being alive presupposes private property rights.Or we can approach it from a economic viewpoint: a lack of private property means a lack of wealth because you remove the incentives for people to work. 

If it is the case that i own myself (the self as property and owner), can i sell myself or am i a special case of property that cannot be bargained with?

Self-ownership is inalienable, you always own yourself. That's not to stop you from selling "yourself", but because self-ownership is inalienable you could walk away anytime you wanted as you were never really owned. 

Do i own my offspring as they are the product of my work?

They own themselves.  

While this is an extreme case, albeit possible, what happens when all land has been homesteaded? Would that not mean i cannot decide whether i pay rent or not, but can only decide who i pay rent to?

All resources are scarce, the only system that's shown it can efficiently handle this is private property. Land is no different.If at some point the earth does get completely full, then private property will deal with this in a far better way than any other system possibly could.Pointless, context-free "what-ifs" don't change that, especially when you look at what the alternatives to private property have always resulted in.