3 ms·

They basically are equivalent if you go by what is typically called libertarianism in the US.

mindcrime 9y ago
No, that's pretty much completely wrong. For example, look at one of the key characteristics of feudalism, serfdom[1]: Serfdom is the status of many peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage, which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. OTOH, Libertarianism is explicitly based on the idea of self-ownership and rejects the idea of that style of bondage (although certainly allowing for debt, and any kind of contractual obligation one wants to voluntarily enter into), and also supports property rights for everyone, not just "lords" and "vassals" and so forth. [2] Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom [2]: https://www.lp.org/platform/ https://www.lp.org/platform/
- czep 9y ago
  > Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property This fascination with property rights is why libertarians are so often dismissed. Liberty should mean a lot more than base selfish "get your hands off my property." It's also not workable in a vastly unequal society. With a lot of the world's wealth having been accumulated by birth, status, or cultural capital, all diametrically opposite of any notion of having earned that wealth, it's a non-starter to suggest that the rest of us "have-nots" dare not place any limits on what the haves can do with the property they magically acquired. You want absolute property rights? I'd be fine with that if the inheritance tax was 100% and everyone started off on equal footing, with an equal chance to succeed based purely on their own hard work. That'll never happen, and that's exactly why we need to place serious controls on excessive wealth accumulation.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    Exactly, every instance of property ownership in the world without exception started with someone at some point in history staking a claim to it by keeping everyone else off of it through the threat of violence, but then libertarians come along and decide that any attempt to remove that claim to property ownership and return it to the natural state of not being exclusively owned by anyone is unacceptable violent coercion. The whole philosophy is self-contradictory nonsense. They claim to be against all forms of violent coercion, but then enshrine the largest and most widespread system of violent coercion ever to exist as a sacred right.

No, that's pretty much completely wrong. For example, look at one of the key characteristics of feudalism, serfdom[1]: Serfdom is the status of many peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage, which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. OTOH, Libertarianism is explicitly based on the idea of self-ownership and rejects the idea of that style of bondage (although certainly allowing for debt, and any kind of contractual obligation one wants to voluntarily enter into), and also supports property rights for everyone, not just "lords" and "vassals" and so forth. [2] Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom [2]: https://www.lp.org/platform/ https://www.lp.org/platform/

czep 9y ago
> Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property This fascination with property rights is why libertarians are so often dismissed. Liberty should mean a lot more than base selfish "get your hands off my property." It's also not workable in a vastly unequal society. With a lot of the world's wealth having been accumulated by birth, status, or cultural capital, all diametrically opposite of any notion of having earned that wealth, it's a non-starter to suggest that the rest of us "have-nots" dare not place any limits on what the haves can do with the property they magically acquired. You want absolute property rights? I'd be fine with that if the inheritance tax was 100% and everyone started off on equal footing, with an equal chance to succeed based purely on their own hard work. That'll never happen, and that's exactly why we need to place serious controls on excessive wealth accumulation.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Exactly, every instance of property ownership in the world without exception started with someone at some point in history staking a claim to it by keeping everyone else off of it through the threat of violence, but then libertarians come along and decide that any attempt to remove that claim to property ownership and return it to the natural state of not being exclusively owned by anyone is unacceptable violent coercion. The whole philosophy is self-contradictory nonsense. They claim to be against all forms of violent coercion, but then enshrine the largest and most widespread system of violent coercion ever to exist as a sacred right.