What is the mainstream in this forum?

[Thomasio]

I've been around for a while, but I still can't get a straight idea of what the majority in this forum thinks, so maybe you guys could clear a few things up for me?

 

I see myself as a libertarian, meaning I feel welcome under the title of this forum.

In this topic

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44502-political-spectrum-test/

I figured out, most members of this forum are right wing libertarians, where I myself prefer left wing libertarian ideas.

Still I would believe, I should be not too far off the main idea of this forum.

There are a few differences, i.e. I believe a stateless society still requires some kind of rules beyond property rights, including some mechanism to enforce them, i.e. some protection against religious fanatics, also I have a different view on economics, but on the main point of wanting to abolish a corrupt government we're on the same page.

 

But then there are all these down votes, where I point out right wing authoritarian ideas as bad and I never get an up vote on these, as if all the ones who vote on postings prefer right wing authoritarian over left wing libertarian.

Like this one: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46280-walmart-closes-la-store-over-15-minimum-wage/?p=423647

I pointed out a simple fact, not even an opinion or something, I've put a sentence before that making clear, this has nothing to do with a free society but is only a result of a state that has an authoritarian government, but someone in here sees that as so bad that one has to give it a negative vote, while nobody feels the need for a positive vote.

 

Then there are users who identify in their nick already as left libertarians, who get massive downvotes to an extend that I'm tempted to believe the nick alone might give them part of the negative votes already.

Like this one: https://board.freedomainradio.com/user/24148-libertariansocialist/

 

Is that really the case, is the orientation right before left so much more important that the majority of people in this forum if they had to choose between left libertarians and right authoritarians prefer authoritarians, or why is it that left libertarian ideas seem so unpopular in here?

I've seen most of Stefan's videos, I never had the impression he was particularly right wing oriented, so I get the impression, his forum might have been hijacked by right wingers, where a good portion of them is actually authoritarian.

Or is that just a wrong impression?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It's mostly voluntarist. 

[A4E]

We have a good idea of who is the most important person for a peaceful voluntary planet.

[TheRobin]

I might have an idea why you get some downvotes. It's these little jabs and exaggerations that are annoying putting right wing automatically in the "authoritarian" camp (despite the fact that left authoritarian governments have caused wayyyy more death and misery) or calling it "massive" downvotes when your score overall is only -5 (so 5 total downvotes).

It's just a bit manipulative and dishonest. Might not be the whole reason of course, sometimes people also just downvote cause they disagree (though, if you make a good case that's very rarely what happens).

But essentially, I don't even know what that would mean (left or right wing libertarian), you either accept the NAP or you don't and if your posts contain ideas that require the initiation of force then don't be surprised about downvotes

[Frederik]

I have read the article you linked to in the thread about minimum wage. It appears to be well-reasoned within the liberal mindset, but well, that is not what FDR is about. The fact of the matter is, as you pointed out, minimum wage is just another way of enforcing opinion onto people at the point of the gun. The author writes:

 

 

[...] one is struck by how much the Commission’s analysis is dominated by mainstream economic thinking when it argues time after time that wages should be in line with productivity at the level of individual companies and individual workers. Such a view creates a profound bias against minimum wages [...]

(my underlining)

I mean, he essentially argues against common sense - to pay workers what they are worth.

 

> Even if minimum wage policies create jobs in current societies, arguing for it is highly dangerous and unproductive. Proclaiming state programs are "good" in whatever context is only postponing the creation of a free society through distraction.

 

I urge you to question your libertarian ideals and dive into what arguments there are for a stateless society. Here are some essential videos / podcasts:

 

 

[shirgall]

Don't worry about upvotes, and focus more on analysis and experience. There is a slightly higher level of economic over social libertarianism afloat here, but the real dividing line is over spanking here.

[JamesP]

Well, the person you pointed out, Thomasio, says stuff like this: "Under capitalism workers cannot freely chose to accept or reject a job offer." He doesn't provide an argument, he just throws out a claim and then astutely avoids making an argument to support it.

 

If you do the same kind of thing, you will, over time, receive downvotes. 

[MagnumPI]

What day of the week is it? Lately we're Republicans backing a war candidate who has been bankrupt (morally and financially) a number of times.

[Thomasio]

Why I care about the labels people identify with?

 

Let me put it this way.

I agree 100% with the pyramid shown in this topic:

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46102-the-new-pyramid/

From that I take as #1 priority the need to get rid of the super rich takers on the very top, even above government and media.

Furthermore I believe these top level takers are right wing authoritarians, who bribe politicians so they steal from the people to hand all wealth over to the top.

Therefore I despise completely any right wing authoritarians, way more than even left wing authoritarians or right wing libertarians, right wing authoritarians are the precise opposite of my position.

 

From my impression this forum is mostly in support of republicans, who to my mind are the biggest thieves in this story and even if they were not, they clearly are right wing authoritarians.

Every time I try to say anything against those super rich takers, I get downvotes and replys that tell me, most people in this forum don't want to get rid of them, just the opposite.

I get answers saying, the state should pay its debt, which obviously is mostly the wealth of those super rich takers, then the state should get ablolished and the super rich should be allowed to convert their wealth into property rights.

 

So if despite the name of the forum, I am here in a forum that mostly supports right wing authoritarian ideas, I'm in the wrong place and I will have to find myself some other forum that actually supports libertarian ideas.

But if that's a wrong impression, I would love to have that cleared, so I can stay here and feel home.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What day of the week is it? Lately we're Republicans backing a war candidate who has been bankrupt (morally and financially) a number of times.

I'm very tired of hearing this stupid claim. Stefan nor anyone I know at FDR is backing Trump's candidacy. 

[Thomasio]

I'm very tired of hearing this stupid claim. Stefan nor anyone I know at FDR is backing Trump's candidacy. 

 

Too bad I cannot upvote anything.

THIS is precisely my point, or at least my impression.

There seem to be a whole bunch of authoritarians in here and I wonder why they can downvote my libertarian ideas based on the fact my ideas aren't far enough right wing, while the actual libertarians don't give me any upvotes.

That's what leaves for me the impression, there might even be a majority of authoritarians in here.

[MagnumPI]

Yeah a separate webpage dedicated to the man is just for the interest of philosophy. Removing critical posts of Trump/in favor of Rand from the board and YouTube is just a play to get people to stop hitting their kids...

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yeah a separate webpage dedicated to the man is just for the interest of philosophy. Removing critical posts of Trump/in favor of Rand from the board and YouTube is just a play to get people to stop hitting their kids...

Sarcasm is not an argument. Don't give me insinuations. Give me proof.

Too bad I cannot upvote anything.

THIS is precisely my point, or at least my impression.

There seem to be a whole bunch of authoritarians in here and I wonder why they can downvote my libertarian ideas based on the fact my ideas aren't far enough right wing, while the actual libertarians don't give me any upvotes.

That's what leaves for me the impression, there might even be a majority of authoritarians in here.

If you are supporting initiations of force like taxation for example then you are advocating violence. You'll get down-votes for that because because the mainstream here is voluntarism. Also if you make that kind of anti-capitalist bald-assertions that James P quoted then you won't do well. 

[Thomasio]

How do you mean we should "get rid of" these "takers" (label)? Do you mean we should take from them?

I mean stolen wealth shouldn't become legal.

I mean upon abolishing an entirely corrupt system we shouldn't give the initiators and main beneficiaries of the stealing any kind of credit.

I mean we the people should take back whats rightfully ours.

 

What do you mean by "convert their wealth into property rights"? Property rights are a foundational concept to your "libertarianism" (label), are they not? By that standard, don't these "rich takers" already have property rights, and OWN the effects of their labor--ie, "wealth"? How would you propose they be stopped from converting their wealth (whatever that means)? If it's by the initiation of force, then again, I agree you're in the wrong place.

 

There's nothing to say against property rights, I'm all in on that one, but definately NOT if it's stolen property.

Or would you find it ok, if in a free society gangs of thieves were going around, stealing whatever they want to have and claim property rights on anything they have stolen based on the fact they can protect their stolen wealth?

If you allow the super rich to keep their stolen wealth, you enable them to keep the stealing going, even if you abolish the government.

They would use their money to hire some kind of private "soldiers" which would then continue with further stealing.

Abolishing the state without sending the super rich takers to hell would only replace the executors.

 

I mean look at it throughout the world, the super rich never had a problem stealing, no matter the political system.

From feudalism, over democracy, socialsm and communism up to anarchic situations in some parts of Africa, in secular states as well as under religious fanatism, the super rich steal everywhere all the time.

What makes you think a free world could be anywhere near free if you let these jerks stay on top?

[Mister Mister]

I think the mainstream in FDR is not left-wing or right-wing, but philosophical principles: Reason, empiricism, self-knowledge, and UPB.  What you call left-wing libertarianism is incompatible with these.

I've said this before but I'll say it again.  When I first really started digging in to all these ideas, I thought I could find some compatibility with left-libertarians.  I really wanted to connect it all together, so to speak.  Like you perhaps, I figured, "hey these people are against the State too, what little differences they have can easily be cleared up", but experience with talking to leftists like yourself has taught me otherwise: the differences are significant, and essentially amount to a difference in methodology for determining truth and virtue.  I never talked to a left libertarian who could simply distill for me, down to principles, what it is they are actually arguing for.  My belief is that, at it's core, left-libertarianism is not about principles, but is really just a set of preferences as to how they want society to look, and these preferences may change from individual.  Where the free market produces results which deviate from those preferences, they then believe it has "failed" in some way and argue for some kind of reform.  So in many ways they are still Central Planners like Statist Leftists, and are willing to engage in verbal manipulation and pander to the vanity, greed, and envy of the masses, which in my mind makes them dangerous.  I hope you will consider this.
 

[Thomasio]

If you are supporting initiations of force like taxation for example then you are advocating violence. You'll get down-votes for that because because the mainstream here is voluntarism. Also if you make that kind of anti-capitalist bald-assertions that James P quoted then you won't do well. 

 

I'm not against capitalism, but I am strongly against the idea that we should launch a "free" capitalism based on the situation as it has evolved in todays entirely corrupt system.

 

About taxation I'm not sure how to word it.

Of course I don't advocate violence, that's why I'm strongly against violence from super rich takers who hire themselves forces that steal from the people and I'm afraid leaving them their money upon abolishing government will not stop their stealing.

Of course a government that actually executes the violence on behalf of the super rich has to be abolished.

But then I'm not so sure how much voluntarism could do against the money power of the super rich.

I'm tempted to believe a free society will require some form of organization beyond voluntarism that prevents violence and theft and whatever you want to call such organization, it will require funds.

[shirgall]

I'm not against capitalism, but I am strongly against the idea that we should launch a "free" capitalism based on the situation as it has evolved in todays entirely corrupt system.

 

 

We have never had an opportunity to try capitalism without the corrupting influence of a state. Even the early US had immediate market interference under the Articles of Confederation and later under the Constitution.

[Thomasio]

I think the mainstream in FDR is not left-wing or right-wing, but philosophical principles: Reason, empiricism, self-knowledge, and UPB.  What you call left-wing libertarianism is incompatible with these.

 

I've said this before but I'll say it again.  When I first really started digging in to all these ideas, I thought I could find some compatibility with left-libertarians.  I really wanted to connect it all together, so to speak.  Like you perhaps, I figured, "hey these people are against the State too, what little differences they have can easily be cleared up", but experience with talking to leftists like yourself has taught me otherwise: the differences are significant, and essentially amount to a difference in methodology for determining truth and virtue.  I never talked to a left libertarian who could simply distill for me, down to principles, what it is they are actually arguing for.  My belief is that, at it's core, left-libertarianism is not about principles, but is really just a set of preferences as to how they want society to look, and these preferences may change from individual.  Where the free market produces results which deviate from those preferences, they then believe it has "failed" in some way and argue for some kind of reform.  So in many ways they are still Central Planners like Statist Leftists, and are willing to engage in verbal manipulation and pander to the vanity, greed, and envy of the masses, which in my mind makes them dangerous.  I hope you will consider this.

 

 

Very good points there.

I did consider most of this already and I believe I have a few things I could answer to that.

 

The very first and most important point is the difference between socialism and communism.

I believe most right wingers misinterpret what socialism actually is, they assume it's all communism, while in fact communism is better described as state capitalism, where the state abolishes the takers above them and becomes the takers themselves.

That's a left authoritarian system and has nothing at all in common with socialism.

 

Socialism, at least the way I see it, is the opposite of central planning, in socialism EVERYTHING is decided democratically within small units.

Richard Wolff defines the #1 priority in socialism should be "democratize the enterprise".

That's literally what right wing libertarians want as well, unless I got it completely wrong.

As far as I understood, all libertarians want the producers, the workers who are currently at the bottom of the pyramid to receive the full credit of the fruits of their labor, without any takers above them.

Make the enterprise the property of the workers who decide themselves what they want to produce, where they want to produce, how they want to produce and how to split the profits, WITHOUT ANY interference from any government, does precisely that, it gives the workers the power and it is the core idea of socialism.

 

I'm aware there are many hijackers of socialism, there is an overwhelming amount of left authoritarians who claim to be socialists, i.e. Bernie Sanders, who give socialism a real bad reputation, who are from true socialism as far away as Donald Trump is away from libertarians.

I believe this is why so many right wing libertarians cannot see anything good in left ideas and I believe left authoritarians abuse this misunderstanding, to divide left libertarians from right libertarians, just so they can get the right libertarians to vote for authoritarian republicans.

 

How I imagine a functioning society from a left libertarian point of view? Easy.

Worker owned production in democratically organized enterprises, in capitalistic competition with each other and without a government above.

[Thomasio]

We have never had an opportunity to try capitalism without the corrupting influence of a state. Even the early US had immediate market interference under the Articles of Confederation and later under the Constitution.

 

True, but how does that solve the problem of what will happen if you leave the outcome of the corruption in place upon abolishion of the bottom half of the corruption?

Corruption requires two ends, one paying a bribe, one taking the bribe.

To my mind abolishing government means getting rid of those taking the bribe, but leaving the ones paying the bribe in place to my mind cannot lead to anything but them finding someone else to pay the bribe to, who will continue the very same corrupt system, only under a different name, maybe a private army or something like that.

I'm open for arguments of why this will not happen though.

 

Edit: My answer to RoseCodex appears to be stuck in approval .... hope it will show up soon, before it gets out of context.

[Carl Green]

Dear group of individuals that can't reply as a group,

 

What's your deal?

[Mister Mister]

This is a common argument, even among Leftist Statists.  It's this idea that we can only have a free market once all the wrongs of the past have been righted.  Basically this means we will never have a free market.  Because the crimes of history are too numerous to make up for, and those who perceive themselves as victims will never be satisfied.  Liberty is about you being free to live your life on your own terms.  It's not about envy of others, and trying to remake the world in your own perfect image.  In the event that we dismantle the State, which is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, people would figure this kind of thing out, public property might be sold off to pay certain debts, State criminals might be prosecuted, stolen property reconfiscated and so on. 

I go with Murray Rothbard on this one, if someone has a better claim to property, they can make the case.  But if the claim is simply that another person's ownership is unfair, you don't just get to steal it...and give it to whom?  Anyway, this is all at least 100 years in the future so it's really towards the bottom of the list of liberty related issues anyway, and not worth very much of our time I don't think.

[Thomasio]

Dear group of individuals that can't reply as a group,

 

What's your deal?

 

I don't mind differences in opinion, that's the basis of discussion, without that a forum like this doesn't make much sense.

This forum apparently DOES seem to reply as a group, where most of the downvotes I get come from right wing authoritarians, while libertarians might contest such an answer once in a while, like ProfessionalTeabagger in reply #11 in this topic (which promptly got him a downvote from an authoritarian Trump supporter) but don't give upvotes.

This behavior in the end makes me look like an enemy of libertarians and that I DO mind.

 

Then there are these ....... not sure how to word that ....... misunderstandings on purpose.

Like reply #5 in this topic.

He refers to an article that I pointed to as proof for a minimum wage under an authoritarian government actually creating jobs.

Based on the content of that article he "urges me to question my libertarian ideals", while in fact I, without any room for misinterprettation, pointed out that this is an effect of an authoritarian system that has nothing to do with any libertarian ideas.

Makes me wonder how else I could have worded it?

[shirgall]

True, but how does that solve the problem of what will happen if you leave the outcome of the corruption in place upon abolishion of the bottom half of the corruption?

 

To my mind, abolishing government is not the first step. The first step is a return to compartmentalization. If no one single entity controls all of the levers that's an important step forward. This is why I prefer competition among the states and removal of Federal power in deference to the power of the individual states. Sure, all the states might agree on a single course of action, but even if they do it's not the same as the diktats of the Federal government.

[Thomasio]

To my mind, abolishing government is not the first step. The first step is a return to compartmentalization. If no one single entity controls all of the levers that's an important step forward. This is why I prefer competition among the states and removal of Federal power in deference to the power of the individual states. Sure, all the states might agree on a single course of action, but even if they do it's not the same as the diktats of the Federal government.

 

Thumbs up on that one, makes a lot of sense.

But how do you do that, while the super rich work not only on national but global level together and bribe not only national governments but make sure that entire continents all have the same laws, all in favor of legalizing the bribery and the theft?

How could you split gigantic corrupt structures into small units without taking the source of the bribery out of the picture first?

[shirgall]

Thumbs up on that one, makes a lot of sense.

But how do you do that, while the super rich work not only on national but global level together and bribe not only national governments but make sure that entire continents all have the same laws, all in favor of legalizing the bribery and the theft?

How could you split gigantic corrupt structures into small units without taking the source of the bribery out of the picture first?

 

I don't know. I spend a lot of probably wasted time trying to convince people that letting single entities wield too much control over them is a really really bad idea.

[Thomasio]

I don't know. I spend a lot of probably wasted time trying to convince people that letting single entities wield too much control over them is a really really bad idea.

 

There we're on the same page.

It's definately a bad idea and it's probably wasted time to fight it.

I believe that's because the money power of the super rich combined with plain greed of their corrupt executors is a far stronger force than voluntary work and patient attempts to convince people in a discussion could ever be.

This quote, I don't even know who said it first, keeps getting to my mind: "If you cannot beat them, buy them."

I blieve this also applies to todays sick society, where just too many people have been bought by the system and not enough are left to turn the system around unless the source of the bribery gets eliminated.

A welfare system that "bribes" the poor, subsidies paid for god knows how many reasons and many other sick things make too many people believe they would depend on the continuation of the system as it is.

 

Furthermore the successful attempts of authoritarians to divide left and right wing libertarians to a point where many right wing libertarians rather vote right authoritarian before even considering left libertarian ideas, weaken the libertarian movement.

 

I'd be happy if I was proven wrong on this though, but for the time being I believe we will have to begin the conversion to a free society by abolishing BOTH ends of the corruption.

[Thomasio]

Goodbye. If you want to make things up and be condescending - you can do it at another dinner party.

 

Wow, I may have been wrong after all.

There are people in here who do not support right wing authoritarians and some of them are even Staff.

I feel MUCH better already.

[shirgall]

Wow, I may have been wrong after all.

There are people in here who do not support right wing authoritarians and some of them are even Staff.

I feel MUCH better already.

 

[Thomasio]

Not sarcasm, that was my honest first thought when I saw that "Goodbye" post.

[shirgall]

Not sarcasm, that was my honest first thought when I saw that "Goodbye" post.

 

Ah, but when someone who has the power of the banhammer says "goodbye" it's typically considered authoritarian, and when it is over speech it's typically considered right-wing. That's why I suspected sarcasm.

[Thomasio]

No worries.

I'm used to all kinds of possible misunderstandings in forums on the web, not only in political topics.

If I want to say somthing ironic or sarcastic or anything other than the literal meaning of my words, I usually add a smiley (other than one saying thanks) or something to it.

 

For the censoring in here ......... well yes, I was wondering already why this forum is so heavily protected, while that stands so much against the basic principles of libertarian ideas.

Even after over 150 postings of mine, where  all of them passed approval, every now and then one of my posting doesn't show instantly, but gives me a message saying (not sure about the precise wording) something like: Your message requires admin approval.

I assume, the topics we discuss in here can easily lead to .......... (fill in a word, I don't have one), where independent of political orientation most people in the world would prefer not to see them written anywhere, so I guess for the time being and given the fact that "big brother surely is watching us" here, I'm fine with it.

[DCLugi]

Act voluntarily. Reject the initiation of force. Let the chips fall.

[Anuojat]

I find that most "super rich" as you keep calling them are either A. Good hoenst hard working people that if they didnt try to bribe the state like others thousends of people would lose jobs and theyre bussness would lose "legs" as it were to either stand up at all of remain profitable.

 

B. Rich whom are like but mistakenly believe the system CAN be fair "at times" whatever that means (thsi is in referance to Bill gates and his opinions on the govenrment)

 

C. The kind whom without the guns of the state you thomsio could just walk up to and even suggest starting your own bank/oil company/electricity company/ ect. and they keel over in defeat. Since they rely SO heavily on the state to gain advantage that as you may know at this point lets the avoid things like being good boss and good honest people in general. They dont have to face societys negative consequences or failures.

 

Were it not fo the guns for the state id start A DRO or an company that competes directly with the state and id wager eating my hat id do better than the governments "law" or "police" or "school" and i am not even that experienced in bussness. You could do even better i am sure

 

Also they money is totally worthless and any new money or currency (gold bitcoin silver altcoins or others) would be invested to me and to you and every other honest bussness that CAN make profit without the violance of the State.

[Torero]

Thomasio, three points to start with:

 

1 - I agree very much with mellomama's first post which I upvoted her for that

2 - RoseCodex as always has answered satisfactorily as well

3 - you still seem to hold on to utopian trap narrative like "we (should) abolish the state". It's a megalomane idea to think that we (here, or anywhere else) can "abolish" a huge system.

 

And if you've listened well to Stefan, that's also not what his strategy is. He has expressed multiple times that the process is a multi-generational one; it's raising our children peacefully and from that by itself it follows that un-merited authority and taking things by force instead of peaceful negotiation is automatically disregarded by those new generations themselves. That approach is exactly why I am here as I think that is the only reasonable way forward

 

Then on your questions in the OP: I am raised in a similar culture as you, in NW Europe. We were neighbours for 30 years; you in Germany, me in Holland. On the economic part I was not really "right-wing" or "classical liberal" as it's called there, but rather undecided.

On the personal freedom (which is considered "left-wing") I was very much.

 

The main point about libertarianism/anarchism for me is not having to submit to unmerited authority and in that sense that was already the case when I was a little boy. I've always spoken out against those.

Merited authority comes from wisdom, experience, decent knowledge, real (not corrupted!) scientific thinking, etc.

Unmerited authority comes from power, domination and in essence that is coming from insecure human beings, i.e. people lacking self-knowledge.

 

As far as I've read in various topics your position seems to come from a "radical left Robin Hoody-style" we should steal back wealth from people who have stolen wealth in the first place. If you keep sticking to that idea (which is partly based on the same idea that all left-wing economic thinking has; envy, and force -see the contradiction?!-), I think you'll never understand the philosophical message of FDR/libertarianism/anarchism. Envy is not a good start morally but it's also practically completely useless as you'd need a world-wide army to "disarm" the Rockefellers, Kochs, Rothschilds and all the other "super-duper rich" you don't like. It's a useless fight.

 

So in short; if I were you I should step away from the big picture and look at the small scale; how in our everyday lives we can do things differently from those who are (and will be!) unvirtuous, violent and stealing. You won't change those other people, yet in this life have the possibility to change/improve yourself, your offspring and your closest social surroundings. Focus on that rather than changing the complete whole wide world; a lost cause from the very start.

[Thomasio]

I'm sorry Anuojat, I have the impression you're defending the existing system in order to contradict my points.

Maybe it's just a wrong impression of mine again, if so, please clear that for me.

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46102-the-new-pyramid/

 

That's a really good explanation, where the wording of "super rich" I'm using stands for the top level takers.

I'm not trying to defend politics and not the corrupt system we have either, I'm all in on abolishing government.

Since libertarians believe everyone should receive the full fruit of his own labor, following libertarian ideas neccessary requires there cannot be any takers on top who steal from the workers and that does not only include politics and media but first and foremost the top level parasites.

That's why I believe we not only have to abolish government, but also have to get rid of the top level takers.

If you want to pick on the wording "super rich", give me a better one, I'll be happy to exchange the words.

But if you're trying to defend the top level takers, I believe you will have most of this forum against you.

 

Whether or not you yourself can launch a company that does better than the state is an independent question.

I don't doubt you could easily do better than the state, but what does that have to do with your personal income?

As a small business owner you wouldn't be a super rich taker, you would provide your own labor to the company and therefore receive the fruit of your labor.

Whether you do that as the owner of your business or as a worker within someone elses business shouldn't make a difference, your work has a value and will be paid just that.

If you as the boss work longer hours, do bookkeeping or other things on top of your other work, you make more money, all fine, all fair, all compatibel with libertarian ideas.

But if you one day decide to pull out of work, you remain owner of the company, you hire someone else, make him a CEO, to do precisely the work you have done up to then and you pay him only half as much as you made while you were working, while you yourself don't do any work at all anymore, but cash half of the value of your CEO's labor for nothing, if you command your new CEO to lower wages for the workers and hand the increased profit on top of half the CEO's value over to you, for no economic reason, but exclusively to increase your own wealth, then you become a thief.

 

Before you get that wrong:

In case you remain active as in keeping your money available for investments, maintenance of the companies property and all that, of course you still have a value for the company and still get part of the profits the company generates, the above stands for completely pulling out, cashing in, in exchange for nothing and even increasing your income through paying your workers less than their labor is worth.