Weird theory

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I brought up this theory in political crossfire.com a few weeks ago, but the site has been down. Basically,

Libertarianism without property law. So, the state wouldn't confiscate your property, but in the same time, noone's property would be exclusively theirs. So, if you kill someone, you'll get in trouble, but there wouldn't be any property law as far as the government is concerned. Just a weird theory that I've coined as "Marxist-Libertarianism"

Don't get me wrong. I love Libertarianism, it's just something I thought about, do you think it's flawed? Unworkable?

 

[Bradley in DC]

It didn't work for the Spanish anarchists during their civil war.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

They tried it? I thought I made up something new I'll look it up. There would still be a minarchy though.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

update***

they didn't get a chance to implement it lol and I don't think they were fighting for this. but ok

 

[Bryan]

I brought up this theory in political crossfire.com a few weeks ago, but the site has been down. Basically,

Libertarianism without property law. So, the state wouldn't confiscate your property, but in the same time, noone's property would be exclusively theirs. So, if you kill someone, you'll get in trouble, but there wouldn't be any property law as far as the government is concerned. Just a weird theory that I've coined as "Marxist-Libertarianism"

Don't get me wrong. I love Libertarianism, it's just something I thought about, do you think it's flawed? Unworkable?

Joseph- I bet we could talk about this stuff for days. Maybe after the election.

 

[Carl]

So, you and the wife go to the store for a couple of hours one day and when you return, you find another family has taken up residence in your house and they're making themselves to home. This is my house you cry! It was abandoned when we got here they respond. But this is my house you yell, we only left to go to the store! Sorry but possession is 100% the rule and seeing has how we possess this property I can hardly see where you get the notion it's yours, now go away and stop bothering us.

 

[Brandybuck]

The trouble with property-less anarchy (anarcho-socialism), is that property will arise spontaneously. Without a state to forbid it by force, you cannot prevent it.

On the other hand, propertarian anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) has no problem at all with groups that wish to set up property-less communes and syndicates.

 

[mdh]

This sounds like communism, not libertarianism. There's nothing libertarian about it. If no one has property, why should anyone do anything productive? Why should I bother to work, earn my own food, when I can just go to someone who has food and take it, since they don't own it? The inevitable conclusion becomes an authoritarian state that forces each person to perform a given task.

 

[Anne]

This sounds like communism, not libertarianism. There's nothing libertarian about it. If no one has property, why should anyone do anything productive? Why should I bother to work, earn my own food, when I can just go to someone who has food and take it, since they don't own it? The inevitable conclusion becomes an authoritarian state that forces each person to perform a given task.

I'm a bit shocked by this thread (and I'm not easily shocked)! I can't imagine anyone with generally libertarian views thinking there should be no property ownership. It is most definitely communism and is the antithesis of libertarianism and freedom.

"Marxist-Libertarianism" ????

That's an oxymoron. The two cannot co-exist.

 

[Bryan]

I'm a bit shocked by this thread (and I'm not easily shocked)! I can't imagine anyone with generally libertarian views thinking there should be no property ownership. It is most definitely communism and is the antithesis of libertarianism and freedom.

"Marxist-Libertarianism" ????

That's an oxymoron. The two cannot co-exist.

I don't think he was really saying there should be no property ownership, the question seems to be more of a product of a mind engaged in deep thought of various issues, I applaud this since if you don't explore the possibilities you end up just repeating what other people have told you. Not that I'm disagreeing with your oxymoron analysis.

 

[Gee]

Thats called libertarian socialism, the thing that Noam Chomsky rants about. It seems based on the idea that private property can only come about through coercion. Wikipedia has a good article.

 

[Bradley in DC]

update***

they didn't get a chance to implement it lol and I don't think they were fighting for this. but ok

My understanding is that they tried it in a few cities they controlled for short times during the actual conflict. Granted, this would not be an ideal experiment, but it's the closest real world example in practice I can think of off-hand.

 

[cujothekitten]

One of my good friends is an anarcho-socialist (I'm libertarian) and even Chomsky has a problem figuring out how it would work. You would need authority to enforce the practice. What my friend usually says is that the town/city/community would enforce the "law" but that is still authority and mob rule.

Anarcho-capatalism also has its problems even though it's closer to a resolution on crime and privatization.

After hanging out with socialists, anarchists, liberals and communists I've decided that libertarianism is probably the best way to go. Small government to protect our rights and freedom for all.

 

[Anne]

I don't think he was really saying there should be no property ownership, the question seems to be more of a product of a mind engaged in deep thought of various issues, I applaud this since if you don't explore the possibilities you end up just repeating what other people have told you. Not that I'm disagreeing with your oxymoron analysis.

I never said he shouldn't engage his mind in deep thought on various issues. I simply said that *my* mind was shocked by what he said. I applaud anyone thinking about anything.

Anything socialist scares the crap out of me, especially the idea of no property ownership.

 

[jon_perez]

I absolutely don't get it. If you abolish property, what's the point of money... or civilization for that matter?? No money, no civilization. Even people who barter accept the concept of property.

Get off the crack pipe...

 

[Bryan]

I never said he shouldn't engage his mind in deep thought on various issues. I simply said that *my* mind was shocked by what he said. I applaud anyone thinking about anything.

Anything socialist scares the crap out of me, especially the idea of no property ownership.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. He did say it but my point was that I don't think his convections were there, it seems more like an interesting thought-scenario that he was trying to think through. No property ownership isn't sounding good over here either but now I've thought about it.

 

[Anne]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. He did say it but my point was that I don't think his convections were there, it seems more like an interesting thought-scenario that he was trying to think through. No property ownership isn't sounding good over here either but now I've thought about it.

If we don't do something none of us is going to be allowed to own property. Eminent domain is proof of the direction the so-called government is taking us in.

 

[Bradley in DC]

If we don't do something none of us is going to be allowed to own property. Eminent domain is proof of the direction the so-called government is taking us in.

Lesser known fact about Dr. Paul, but he introduced legislation to curtail eminent domain abuse before the Supremes got involved:

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr4084.htm

(in the spirit of full disclosure, I was the staffer behind this which was in reaction to the NY Libertarians defending a Black church there). Rep. Kilpatrick was our co-sponsor; she's now head of the Congressional Black Caucus.

 

[Bryan]

I agree with you Anne.

Lesser known fact about Dr. Paul, but he introduced legislation to curtail eminent domain abuse before the Supremes got involved:

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr4084.htm

(in the spirit of full disclosure, I was the staffer behind this which was in reaction to the NY Libertarians defending a Black church there). Rep. Kilpatrick was our co-sponsor; she's now head of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Bradley, I would be really interested to hear some of your Ron Paul DC stories- I know you've got them. Just start a new thread when you get a chance...

 

[beermotor]

I brought up this theory in political crossfire.com a few weeks ago, but the site has been down. Basically,

Libertarianism without property law. So, the state wouldn't confiscate your property, but in the same time, noone's property would be exclusively theirs. So, if you kill someone, you'll get in trouble, but there wouldn't be any property law as far as the government is concerned. Just a weird theory that I've coined as "Marxist-Libertarianism"

Don't get me wrong. I love Libertarianism, it's just something I thought about, do you think it's flawed? Unworkable?

Worst idea ever?

Property law is the foundation of social order. Anarchism without property law would be pure chaos, natural tooth-and-nail domination, etc.

In a sense, your property is never "exclusively" yours - you will likely use it, sell it to someone else, leave it to your heirs, etc. It is a transient commodity. But, it must be protected by law, or else there will be a massive breakdown of social order.