7 ms·

Private property rights, or being manifestly in control of the fruits of ones labor. Or the exact opposite of slavery.

zzzeek 5y ago
the core value of libertarianism is that the strong will dominate the weak, meaning a pure libertarian society would feature widespread slavery as a primary feature.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Where does domination in your example come from exactly? To dominate requires the initiation of force or coercion. Slavery is a primary feature of a state that violates rights, not one that enshrines them.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    The only "safe guard" libertarianism brings to the table here is that a person must sign on the dotted line first. Not exactly rock solid when you also allow and encourages the inevitable concentration of wealth through private property at the same time. Private property IS coercion.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      Your safeguard is the choice to act or not act. That's a feature of a free individual. Not a bug. Choices don't become invalid or "wrong" because some people have been wildly successful with theirs while others haven't. What exactly makes wealth such a sticking point in these arguments against libertarianism? It's not considered wrong to be "too" intelligent, or "too" handsome, or "too" strong. But for some reason using these qualities and abilities to obtain money, supposedly in excess of some "moral number" like $1B, results in being "too" wealthy and thus "wrong". Wealth and private property are a representation of value earned through choices made. I would think that one would want more value in his life not less. In a free market, value is generated by choosing to vote with one's dollar, gold bar, or bitcoin. Private property is NOT coercion. Coercion implies you own nothing and owe everything.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        An agreement under coercion, direct or indirect, can't be reduced into some intentionally sterile and neutral "choice" without any context. When someone try to do that, it suggests that one is uncomfortable with that fact and prefer to rationalize it.
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not. There is no in-between. If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive, then we come to the conclusion that no normal human being is ever free. That the only people who truly have choices are clairvoyants and that the rest are as unqualified and naive as children. Obviously, I reject that. While choice is not without context, that context is individually determined by the one's interests and rational faculties. One doesn't know what he doesn't know. However a person still has the freedom to to take a calculated risk if he deems the payoff worth it. That a person doesn't need to know everything to exercise his agency is what demonstrates choice exists and is not simply the rationalization that you claim it is. As far as ownership is concerned, why in your view is that direct or indirect coercion? Why is buying or owning something force?
        cloudfifty 5y ago
        > If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated. It would be helpful if we can try to keep this in plain English. > Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not People can have both agency and still use that agency into making an indirectly coerced "choice". The fact remain that it's coerced, and thus not particularly free as in freedom.
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Then you're using a convoluted definition of "coercion" How are you defining coercion or assessing its presence in a given agreement? Ignorance? Being in want? Genetic differences? When, in your view, are people not coerced?
- kortilla 5y ago
  > the core value of libertarianism is that the strong will dominate the weak, meaning a pure libertarian society would feature widespread slavery as a primary feature. No it’s not, it’s freedom from being coerced into doing things. Quite literally the opposite of slavery.
  - zzzeek 5y ago
    Who protects that freedom ? Suppose i own the police, because they are of course privatized and owned by unelected entities (me). I can tell them to arrest you or whatever just because I feel like it. Because there is no state providing justice, if you are not yourself powerful or well liked, I don't see where you'd get any recourse. Someone else can easily give you the only choice of indentured servitude for protection and this is not at all a novel pattern in human societies, it goes on all the time.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      A core weakness in libertarianism is the cornerstone assumption that everyone will play by the rules, and offers no remedy for those that violate those rules. Which pretty much ignores human behavior going through history (and personal experience, for anyone who has had to do a group assignment).
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        Yes. Any time there is a power vacuum, there are strongmen waiting to step in and grab that power. As terrible as democracy is, we haven't yet invented anything better to keep the strongmen at bay. So the libertarians will have to live under the rules that society dictates, and here we are.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > I can tell them to arrest you or whatever just because I feel like it. No you can’t violate people’s liberty like that. Come on Mike, you’re not that stupid. Don’t attack strawmen.
cloudfifty 5y ago
How does "this land is mine now, you can work on it to feed yourself" translate somehow into the opposite of slavery?
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  It's more like "this land is mine now, we can work out a deal where you tend to it in exchange for an agreed upon cut". Your original categorization is apt in describing how property taxes and the USDA farm subsidies work, but not free enterprise.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      What's euphemistic about my phrasing? A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head to practice labor is. In your view, is it acceptable that the USDA can dictate the prices of one's crops or put liens on someone's farm land for producing food in manner that isn't produced according to government dictates? Do you think that's the same as coming to an agreement with an equal on certain terms, even if one isn't necessarily happy with all of them? The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        > What's euphemistic about my phrasing? Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? > A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head is to practice labor is. Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself". and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
Lew Rockwell, chairman of the Mises Institute: A postscript on voluntary slavery. I am on record on numerous occasions in support of voluntary slavery; some other libertarians support me on this issue as well. See Andersson, 2007; Block, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007A, 2007B, 2009A, 2009B; Lester, 2000; Nozick, 1974, pp. 58, 283, 331; Philmore, 1982; Steiner, 1994, pp. 232. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilou...
- beerandt 5y ago
  Voluntary slavery here, means that the ultimate control of your own life includes the right to give it away, sell it, or end it. It does not mean chattel slavery, or involuntary servitude, or even involuntary government seizures.
  - the_why_of_y 5y ago
    And your point is? That it is okay to demand that poor people agree to become slaves in exchange for access to health care for their family?
    - beerandt 5y ago
      No- that private property rights are consistent with the libertarian quote above because it's voluntary. You can argue what truly voluntarily slavery would look like in a modern world, but involuntary chattel slavery is what conflicts with principles of private property. I'd argue things like athletes signing away future percentages of potential earnings (which was a fairly popular idea until the current NCAA name and likeness rules changed) would be one potential version.
- the_why_of_y 5y ago
  Too late to edit: this is published on Lew Rockwell's website, but the author of this article is Walter E. Block.

the core value of libertarianism is that the strong will dominate the weak, meaning a pure libertarian society would feature widespread slavery as a primary feature.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Where does domination in your example come from exactly? To dominate requires the initiation of force or coercion. Slavery is a primary feature of a state that violates rights, not one that enshrines them.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  The only "safe guard" libertarianism brings to the table here is that a person must sign on the dotted line first. Not exactly rock solid when you also allow and encourages the inevitable concentration of wealth through private property at the same time. Private property IS coercion.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Your safeguard is the choice to act or not act. That's a feature of a free individual. Not a bug. Choices don't become invalid or "wrong" because some people have been wildly successful with theirs while others haven't. What exactly makes wealth such a sticking point in these arguments against libertarianism? It's not considered wrong to be "too" intelligent, or "too" handsome, or "too" strong. But for some reason using these qualities and abilities to obtain money, supposedly in excess of some "moral number" like $1B, results in being "too" wealthy and thus "wrong". Wealth and private property are a representation of value earned through choices made. I would think that one would want more value in his life not less. In a free market, value is generated by choosing to vote with one's dollar, gold bar, or bitcoin. Private property is NOT coercion. Coercion implies you own nothing and owe everything.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      An agreement under coercion, direct or indirect, can't be reduced into some intentionally sterile and neutral "choice" without any context. When someone try to do that, it suggests that one is uncomfortable with that fact and prefer to rationalize it.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not. There is no in-between. If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive, then we come to the conclusion that no normal human being is ever free. That the only people who truly have choices are clairvoyants and that the rest are as unqualified and naive as children. Obviously, I reject that. While choice is not without context, that context is individually determined by the one's interests and rational faculties. One doesn't know what he doesn't know. However a person still has the freedom to to take a calculated risk if he deems the payoff worth it. That a person doesn't need to know everything to exercise his agency is what demonstrates choice exists and is not simply the rationalization that you claim it is. As far as ownership is concerned, why in your view is that direct or indirect coercion? Why is buying or owning something force?
        cloudfifty 5y ago
        > If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated. It would be helpful if we can try to keep this in plain English. > Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not People can have both agency and still use that agency into making an indirectly coerced "choice". The fact remain that it's coerced, and thus not particularly free as in freedom.
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Then you're using a convoluted definition of "coercion" How are you defining coercion or assessing its presence in a given agreement? Ignorance? Being in want? Genetic differences? When, in your view, are people not coerced?
kortilla 5y ago
> the core value of libertarianism is that the strong will dominate the weak, meaning a pure libertarian society would feature widespread slavery as a primary feature. No it’s not, it’s freedom from being coerced into doing things. Quite literally the opposite of slavery.
- zzzeek 5y ago
  Who protects that freedom ? Suppose i own the police, because they are of course privatized and owned by unelected entities (me). I can tell them to arrest you or whatever just because I feel like it. Because there is no state providing justice, if you are not yourself powerful or well liked, I don't see where you'd get any recourse. Someone else can easily give you the only choice of indentured servitude for protection and this is not at all a novel pattern in human societies, it goes on all the time.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    A core weakness in libertarianism is the cornerstone assumption that everyone will play by the rules, and offers no remedy for those that violate those rules. Which pretty much ignores human behavior going through history (and personal experience, for anyone who has had to do a group assignment).
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Yes. Any time there is a power vacuum, there are strongmen waiting to step in and grab that power. As terrible as democracy is, we haven't yet invented anything better to keep the strongmen at bay. So the libertarians will have to live under the rules that society dictates, and here we are.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > I can tell them to arrest you or whatever just because I feel like it. No you can’t violate people’s liberty like that. Come on Mike, you’re not that stupid. Don’t attack strawmen.

cloudfifty 5y ago

How does "this land is mine now, you can work on it to feed yourself" translate somehow into the opposite of slavery?

Dracophoenix 5y ago
It's more like "this land is mine now, we can work out a deal where you tend to it in exchange for an agreed upon cut". Your original categorization is apt in describing how property taxes and the USDA farm subsidies work, but not free enterprise.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    What's euphemistic about my phrasing? A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head to practice labor is. In your view, is it acceptable that the USDA can dictate the prices of one's crops or put liens on someone's farm land for producing food in manner that isn't produced according to government dictates? Do you think that's the same as coming to an agreement with an equal on certain terms, even if one isn't necessarily happy with all of them? The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > What's euphemistic about my phrasing? Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? > A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head is to practice labor is. Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself". and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

Lew Rockwell, chairman of the Mises Institute: A postscript on voluntary slavery. I am on record on numerous occasions in support of voluntary slavery; some other libertarians support me on this issue as well. See Andersson, 2007; Block, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007A, 2007B, 2009A, 2009B; Lester, 2000; Nozick, 1974, pp. 58, 283, 331; Philmore, 1982; Steiner, 1994, pp. 232. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilou...

beerandt 5y ago
Voluntary slavery here, means that the ultimate control of your own life includes the right to give it away, sell it, or end it. It does not mean chattel slavery, or involuntary servitude, or even involuntary government seizures.
- the_why_of_y 5y ago
  And your point is? That it is okay to demand that poor people agree to become slaves in exchange for access to health care for their family?
  - beerandt 5y ago
    No- that private property rights are consistent with the libertarian quote above because it's voluntary. You can argue what truly voluntarily slavery would look like in a modern world, but involuntary chattel slavery is what conflicts with principles of private property. I'd argue things like athletes signing away future percentages of potential earnings (which was a fairly popular idea until the current NCAA name and likeness rules changed) would be one potential version.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
Too late to edit: this is published on Lew Rockwell's website, but the author of this article is Walter E. Block.