3 ms·

Fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque#Debate_with_Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque#Debate_wi

by gowld 5y ago

Fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque#Debate_with_Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque#Debate_wi... "For Déjacque, on the other hand, the communal state of affairs — the phalanstery 'without any hierarchy, without any authority' except that of the 'statistics book' — corresponded to 'natural exchange,' i.e. to the 'unlimited freedom of all production and consumption; the abolition of any sign of agricultural, individual, artistic or scientific property; the destruction of any individual holding of the products of work; the demonarchisation and the demonetarisation of manual and intellectual capital as well as capital in instruments, commerce and buildings."[10]" I guess Colorado LP's "2 out of 3 kinds of property are legitimate" is a middle ground? (or 3 out of 4? Not sure how to classify their position on clean air as property)

jessaustin 5y ago
Maybe it's like trying to legalize marijuana but not mentioning heroin until a later election...
vidarh 5y ago
It's not really a middle ground, in the sense that left-libertarianism see private property rights as inherently incompatible with liberty, and so the defence of property rights to a left-libertarian is a rejection of the most fundamental demand of libertarianism. While a rejection of intellectual property would be good, it's generally been less contested to start with. The distinction basically boils down to whether or not you see freedom as being about the possibility of doing something vs. about legal right in principle to do something. To left-libertarians, legal rights are meaningless if you are deprived of the ability to exercise them, be it by other laws or by lack of resources. And property rights flow right in the face of that, by denying access to scarce resources that enforce both the immediate lack of access, and economic inequality that prevents the exercise of other rights. To property specifically, I grew up in Norway. In Norway the freedom to roam is considered so intrinsic that until about a century ago it was the only major legal principle regularly treated as "common law" in a system otherwise strictly codified. Today it is codified, and you can hike across all privately owned uncultivated rural land as long as you leave it as you found it, and you can forage, and camp, because allowing public access to the land is seen as an essential trade-off between public liberty and private property rights. That would be closer to what a middle ground looks like - hollowing out private property rights to alter the balance of which protections a private owner has vs. the public. In Norway the balance seeks to recognise the distinction between a private dwelling, where allowing public access would be a massive intrusion vs. land holdings where public access has very limited direct effect on the owner, in e.g. setting limits on how close to private dwellings you can go or camp without asking permission. The point being similar to the libertarian socialist distinction between private and personal property - that there are substantial differences in to what extent maximising liberty requires protecting different kinds of property. If I own a forest and someone walks through it, the impact on my liberty is next to nil. But if someone wanders into my house at night, the impact is substantial. As such, denying someone access to a forest is government overreach that diminished the freedom of the public to a left-libertarian, but denying access to my house is justified because it affects me much more to be made to feel unsafe where I live than it affects others by being denied access to a given house.

by gowld 5y ago

jessaustin 5y ago

Maybe it's like trying to legalize marijuana but not mentioning heroin until a later election...

vidarh 5y ago

It's not really a middle ground, in the sense that left-libertarianism see private property rights as inherently incompatible with liberty, and so the defence of property rights to a left-libertarian is a rejection of the most fundamental demand of libertarianism. While a rejection of intellectual property would be good, it's generally been less contested to start with. The distinction basically boils down to whether or not you see freedom as being about the possibility of doing something vs. about legal right in principle to do something. To left-libertarians, legal rights are meaningless if you are deprived of the ability to exercise them, be it by other laws or by lack of resources. And property rights flow right in the face of that, by denying access to scarce resources that enforce both the immediate lack of access, and economic inequality that prevents the exercise of other rights. To property specifically, I grew up in Norway. In Norway the freedom to roam is considered so intrinsic that until about a century ago it was the only major legal principle regularly treated as "common law" in a system otherwise strictly codified. Today it is codified, and you can hike across all privately owned uncultivated rural land as long as you leave it as you found it, and you can forage, and camp, because allowing public access to the land is seen as an essential trade-off between public liberty and private property rights. That would be closer to what a middle ground looks like - hollowing out private property rights to alter the balance of which protections a private owner has vs. the public. In Norway the balance seeks to recognise the distinction between a private dwelling, where allowing public access would be a massive intrusion vs. land holdings where public access has very limited direct effect on the owner, in e.g. setting limits on how close to private dwellings you can go or camp without asking permission. The point being similar to the libertarian socialist distinction between private and personal property - that there are substantial differences in to what extent maximising liberty requires protecting different kinds of property. If I own a forest and someone walks through it, the impact on my liberty is next to nil. But if someone wanders into my house at night, the impact is substantial. As such, denying someone access to a forest is government overreach that diminished the freedom of the public to a left-libertarian, but denying access to my house is justified because it affects me much more to be made to feel unsafe where I live than it affects others by being denied access to a given house.