4 ms·

But can't we simply compromise and have public means of production with private residential property? As a libertarian socialist this seems like the best way to

But can't we simply compromise and have public means of production with private residential property? As a libertarian socialist this seems like the best way to move past this debate until we implement such a system. I agree with your point, but I'd rather not expound the hypotheticals containing a married couple and child, being visited in the night by some unrelated teens who feel it is their right to sleep in the same room and said couple's child. Your thoughts?

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Honestly, I think the most rational thing to do is shift the conversation to specific alternative institutions. So, for instance, if you propose "We should replace today's join-stock companies with joint-stock cooperatives, and institute commons trusts, empowered to levee taxes on economic rents, for management of public resources", you're likely to get a pretty broad buy-in, from almost everyone except the most hardcore, deontological minarcho-capitalists and revolutionary socialists.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Agreed. I've always been a proponent of dual power reformation. We need to definitely move towards having more "commons" and less "Owned by PLC INC". That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned. But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    >That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. Does anyone not believe in a right to personal possessions? I mean, honestly, do you really think there are unreconstructed Bolsheviks and kibbutznikim around?
loopdoend 13y ago
If you remove the loaded language in "private residential property" and rephrase as simply "residence", i.e. your residence where you are living, then we aren't talking about property as a means of production, which is where the sticking point is. Your residence is your possession, and you have every right to privacy.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  That was my interpretation of what anoncowherd meant. To me, anarcho-capitalists are necessary for reformist action that can expand rights and fight coercion. Any arguments for the abolishment of wage slavery can and should be had, but lets not forget that we're able to discuss that issue, which seems to be the biggest sticking point between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists. That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 for some clarification. In case it helps, consider the following two ways of thinking about land as property. 1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it. 2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be. I think both 1 and 2 make sense.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Honestly, I think the most rational thing to do is shift the conversation to specific alternative institutions. So, for instance, if you propose "We should replace today's join-stock companies with joint-stock cooperatives, and institute commons trusts, empowered to levee taxes on economic rents, for management of public resources", you're likely to get a pretty broad buy-in, from almost everyone except the most hardcore, deontological minarcho-capitalists and revolutionary socialists.

tokenizer 13y ago
Agreed. I've always been a proponent of dual power reformation. We need to definitely move towards having more "commons" and less "Owned by PLC INC". That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned. But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  >That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. Does anyone not believe in a right to personal possessions? I mean, honestly, do you really think there are unreconstructed Bolsheviks and kibbutznikim around?

loopdoend 13y ago

If you remove the loaded language in "private residential property" and rephrase as simply "residence", i.e. your residence where you are living, then we aren't talking about property as a means of production, which is where the sticking point is. Your residence is your possession, and you have every right to privacy.

tokenizer 13y ago
That was my interpretation of what anoncowherd meant. To me, anarcho-capitalists are necessary for reformist action that can expand rights and fight coercion. Any arguments for the abolishment of wage slavery can and should be had, but lets not forget that we're able to discuss that issue, which seems to be the biggest sticking point between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists. That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 for some clarification. In case it helps, consider the following two ways of thinking about land as property. 1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it. 2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be. I think both 1 and 2 make sense.