Is private property incompatible with libertarianism? - Part 2

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture
Is private property incompatible with libertarianism? - Part 2

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky: “a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”.

Is Chomsky correct? Are right wing libertarians sellouts of true libertarianism? Do the property right of some people undermine the liberty of others and turn the libertarianism that Chomsky criticizes in a bubbling pot of self-contradictory, eclectic bird droppings?

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001960]Here's Part One. [/url]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The problem with the last thread was that people cannot discuss the theoretical without it becoming a tyrannical nightmare. Advocating pointing a gun at people to enforce a new definition of property rights is not up for debate. No free society can be founded on coercion. What the fuck don't people get about that. However countries like Canada will enforce property rights on behalf of corporations no matter what. The jailing of native leaders because they refuse to let corporations destroy their land base in the search for mineral profit is a perfect example of how people are secondary to corporations already in our legal system.

Any change to a new system must come from workers taking control of their workplaces when corporations abandon them especially when corporations abandon places like BC and refuse to process our Crown timber but instead ship it to a foreign country. We can start by taking back the public tree farm licenses from corporations who ship raw logs and giving them to community based democratically run cooperatives. There is no one size fits all solution that is in fact mono-culture thinking suited to a central planning model. The workers and their communities must be empowered and that should be the role of gevernment.

Mutual Aid is the answer and it will not be achieved by coercion. Lets face it the reality in this world is that the rich own the guns and the governments that have the most military might. We cannot make change by force no society ever has made lasting change by force.

So Sven and Ghislane and all you other non-progressives try leaving aside the red herrings and lets discuss various ways of striving for a model that better serves people not just shareholders. No Jack Layton is not going to run on a platform of stealing people personal property but he might try looking at tax incentives for worker run and controlled businesses.

Farmpunk

How do my proprty rights undermine the liberty of others? Simply because not everyone can access and have a say in how I utilize the land?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

quote:


Farmpunk: How do my proprty rights undermine the liberty of others? Simply because not everyone can access and have a say in how I utilize the land?

You're welcome to work the land by yourself using equipment that you made yourself. Anything more than that is depriving others of their liberty or contributing to that. Once you appropriate the labour of others you restrict their liberty because their efforts are neither any longer freely undertaken nor under their control. The existence of private property - including your own - is a barrier to the liberty of others.

Chomsky's idea could be reformulated as showing that mixing property rights with rights to liberty results in complete liberty for property owners only. The liberty of those who don't own/control property to dispose of their own efforts "freely", in this mixed view, is undermined. No property? Then you get less liberty.

Perhaps the right wing view should be called [i]propertarianism[/i] to more accurately reflect what is the dominant principle. And the left wing libertarians could re-appropriate the word that has been [i]appropriated[/i] from them.

Now that would be just.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Any change to a new system must come from workers taking control of their workplaces when corporations abandon them especially when corporations abandon places like BC [/b]

Harmac workers just took over their mill, and I wish them the very best!


quote:

[b]and refuse to process our Crown timber but instead ship it to a foreign country. We can start by taking back the public tree farm licenses from corporations who ship raw logs and giving them to community based democratically run cooperatives. [/b]

This is the BC Liberals fault for severing the ties of timber to the community's TSA. The forestry corps knew they could never get private control of the crown lands, so they got the next best thing. Control of the timber without having to mill it, and export it for pure profits. It is also one of the reasons for the pine beetle destruction of our forests.


quote:

[b] The workers and their communities must be empowered and that should be the role of gevernment.

Mutual Aid is the answer and it will not be achieved by coercion...No Jack Layton is not going to run on a platform of stealing people personal property but he might try looking at tax incentives for worker run and controlled businesses.[/b]


Excellently put!

Farmpunk

Hmm, I can understand that in an academic sense, Beltov, but the practical real world application escapes me.

Do you own your own house? Do I have to make the hammer and nails and ask a commitee if I can cut up a tree to make my home?

Is this an instance of where theory trumps reality? It may be fun to discuss, but implementation... That's troublesome.

To me, the end game is land ownership. Lose the land and the key to self-sustainabilty ends with it. Currently happening en mass in this ag area of Canada where, as LTJ put it, land speculation and land acquistion are now only availible to people who already own land to leverage for a bank loan or people with enough money to scoop up land with the age old wisdom that no one is making it anymore.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]You're welcome to work the land by yourself using equipment that you made yourself. Anything more than that is depriving others of their liberty or contributing to that. Once you appropriate the labour of others you restrict their liberty because their efforts are neither any longer freely undertaken nor under their control. The existence of private property - including your own - is a barrier to the liberty of others.[/b]

Let me get this straight: If Farmpunk offers me a job to help him on his farm and I think it's a good idea for what he’s offering me, then he's "appropriating" my labor and “restricting my liberty”?

If so, why don’t you let me worry about that? It’s my labor, after all. To tell me I can’t work for someone is restricting my liberty.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

But if you are a foreign worker our government already says exactly that. If you are a marginalized worker who will work for next too nothing we already have minimum wage laws that also disallow it. The "Libertarian" would argue that it is freer in "Right to Work" states but I would disagree. Sven this is exactly your response but laws restricting your right to contract in a slave like relationship is not a loss of liberty but a protection of your rights.

No one is talking about committees being in charge of everything. That is called central planning and is a different model than the one Chomsky is referring to. The question I want to discuss is precisely how to get from here to a better outcome for working people without having red herrings raised at every turn.

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Let me get this straight: If Farmpunk offers me a job to help him on his farm and I think it's a good idea for what he’s offering me, then he's "appropriating" my labor and “restricting my liberty”?

If so, why don’t you let me worry about that? It’s my labor, after all. To tell me I can’t work for someone is restricting my liberty.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ][/b]


The same old arguments again and again over more than a century [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] The same old pretence that this is about the freedom of the workers, rather than the freedom of the owners.

Well, here's the same old answer: I have some measure of choice in that I can sell my labour to x or y (though not to a or b, depending on my circumstances). This is an advance over feudalism. But if I don't sell my labour to someone, I will die in the street. To tell me I have to work for someone is restricting my liberty.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]The same old presence that this is about the freedom of the workers, rather than the freedom of the owners.[/b]

For a [i]true[/i] libertarian, it's about both.

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

For a [i]true[/i] libertarian, it's about both.[/b]


Please reply to my main point.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Please reply to my main point.[/b]

Sure.

As an individual, you have three basic options: (1) self-employment, (2) organize a group of owners/employees in a collectivist enterprise, or (3) work for someone else.

A [i]true[/i] libertarian would give you all three options. A “[i]socialist[/i] libertarian” (with an emphasis on the first word) would prohibit you from choosing (3).

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Sure.

As an individual, you have three basic options: (1) self-employment, (2) organize a group of owners/employees in a collectivist enterprise, or (3) work for someone else.

A [i]true[/i] libertarian would give you all three options. A “[i]socialist[/i] libertarian” (with an emphasis on the first word) would prohibit you from choosing (3).[/b]


1. No, I don't have all 3 options. I'm poor.

2. How many collectivist enterprises are you aware of? This is not a very realistic option in our system.

3. A system where some have the option to employ others works only if there is a whole group of people who have no option but to sell their labour (or "labour power").

ETA: Would a true libertarian disallow slavery? child labour?

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Sure.

As an individual, you have three basic options: (1) self-employment, (2) organize a group of owners/employees in a collectivist enterprise, or (3) work for someone else.

A [i]true[/i] libertarian would give you all three options. A “[i]socialist[/i] libertarian” (with an emphasis on the first word) would prohibit you from choosing (3).[/b]


Misappropriated anyone else's voice lately?

"A true "socialist libertarian" would ... Who are you to tell us what a true socialist libertarian would do? A true socialist libertarian apparently can believe anything that your active imagination can conjure up but that is a red herring.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sven's reply is entertaining. In response to the very serious matter of the property rights of some people restricting the liberty of others he replies by calling the restriction of liberty its opposite.

But this is simply playing with words to mean their opposite. What a dishonest waste of time.

[b]Chomsky's argument prevails again.[/b] And it's actually kinda fun to administer such a merciless thrashing in the face of such Cheshire Cat tactics. ETA: Although, in truth, George Orwell wrote extensively about such tactics.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Chomsky's argument prevails again.[/b]

But only by your presumptive fiat.

Presumably, you want people to be [i]required[/i] to work in collectivist organizations, even if individuals want to enter into voluntary relationships with others outside of that context.

So much for liberty.

Farmpunk

So let's hear some of the suggestions for moving towards a more equitable society.

I'm getting a feeling here that some believe owning and operating a business - which usually entails employing people on a varying scale - is not "working", on par with the working classes. I disagree.

No matter what happens to my crops, I still have to pay my employees for the work they do. I may put in equal or more hours of labour and end up with much less to take home than they do. If I don't do the set-up work in the off season and early season, there will be no work for the workers during the harvest season. The farm pays for the land taxes, the fertilizer, the equipment upkeep. People are merely managers of the natural cycle.

Now, in the recent past, before a serious and continuing escalation of land prices, it was possible to work for a farmer as a hired hand, or a sharecropper, learn the trade, and then buy land and be your own boss. That's the building block of small farming communities, that and family farms, of which Unionist was so dismissive ("inheriting wealth... etc"). The window for such opprotunities is closing rapidly, so that even if I inherit this land literally for free, I'll probably not be able to afford to be a farmer on it. In that I have no choice. See ya on the street.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]
Do you own your own house? Do I have to make the hammer and nails and ask a commitee if I can cut up a tree to make my home? [/b]

I don't own "my own" house. You can buy a hammer and nails. You can also hire someone to build it for you. You should also be able to grow your own food, own cows for your own use, even sell the produce as far as I'm concerned. When the point comes where you have to hire [i]employees[/i] (not contractors) to do the work for you, that's where I think society becomes immoral and unworkable. The division between rich and poor, owner and owned, free and chained, starts there. I would like to see it stop there.

As for Sven's comment in the previous thread about the "microscopic" number of people who would agree with this - well, that's pretty telling.

Sven (or anyone): [b][i]How many Canadians own means of production of goods and services, and hire employees to produce and/or provide them?[/i][/b] What percentage is that? Not very big in my neighbourhood. The vast majority have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from socializing the means of large-scale production.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Presumably, you want people to be [i]required[/i] to work in collectivist organizations, even if individuals want to enter into voluntary relationships with others outside of that context.

So much for liberty.[/b]


That is as absurd as my saying to you that presumably you want every property owner to be able to have indentured labourers.

Your presumptions are irrelevant because again you are speaking for others who you don't even understand let alone agree with. Why don't you tell us about something you know about instead of speculating negatively on what others want.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]As for Sven's comment in the previous thread about the "microscopic" number of people who would agree with this - well, that's pretty telling. [/b]

Let’s call the percentage of people wanting to collectivize production ownership X%

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Sven (or anyone): [b][i]How many Canadians own means of production of goods and services, and hire employees to produce and/or provide them?[/i][/b] What percentage is that? Not very big in my neighbourhood. The vast majority have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from socializing the means of large-scale production.[/b]

Let’s call the percentage of people who own production capital Y%.

I think your mistake is assuming that 1 - Y% = X%.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]That is as absurd as my saying to you that presumably you want every property owner to be able to have indentured labourers.

Your presumptions are irrelevant because again you are speaking for others who you don't even understand let alone agree with. Why don't you tell us about something you know about instead of speculating negatively on what others want.[/b]


Look, do you want collectivist ownership of all production capital or not?

If you do, then you are necessarily prohibiting those who want to voluntarily enter into non-collectivist activities from doing so (specifically, preventing a non-owner choosing to work for an owner of productive capital).

And, to that I would say: So much for liberty and personal choice.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

quote:


Farmpunk: So let's hear some of the suggestions for moving towards a more equitable society.

That should be another thread. ETA: the goal of defending Chomsky's thesis has been successful, excluding Cheshire Cat responses. Yuk yuk

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]ETA: the goal of defending Chomsky's thesis has been successful[/b]

Is [i]achieving[/i] victory as simple as [i]declaring[/i] victory? If that's the case, I could have done that with my first post! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sven - You've completely failed to respond to the challenge posed by Chomsky's question. Instead, just a lot of right wing double talk.

Let me get you a wet paper bag. You need practice.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Sven - You've completely failed to respond to the challenge posed by Chomsky's question. Instead, just a lot of right wing double talk.[/b]

Uh-huh.

And you seem unable (or, at least, unwilling) to answer a very simple and direct question: [b]Do you favor collectivist ownership of all production capital?[/b]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Your question is irrelevant to the subject of the thread. The self-contradictions that right-wing libertarianism falls into by virtue of eclectically combining property rights with liberty are apparent. These other matters deserve their own thread.

But I don't want to write too much here. Let me give you the last word as you've failed in all other regards. Consider it a consolation prize.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Uh-huh.

And you seem unable (or, at least, unwilling) to answer a very simple and direct question: [b]Do you favor collectivist ownership of all production capital?[/b][/b]


This is a different question than your previous ones. your previous ones presumed that coercive measures were favoured to bring about change. I guess definitions are really hard. What do you mean by collectivist ownership? Shareholders? Production capital is another undefined term. Do you mean the money created by the Bank of Cananda or something else? Does production capital include money in bond markets as well as money for shares? Currently the SCC says that shareholders have more rights than bond holders.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Your question is irrelevant to the subject of the thread. The self-contradictions that right-wing libertarianism falls into by virtue of eclectically combining property rights with liberty are apparent. These other matters deserve their own thread.[/b]

[i]Declaring[/i] a question irrelevant doesn’t [i]make[/i] it irrelevant.

In fact, my question (which, for some reason, you seem reluctant to answer) is very relevant because it goes to the heart of the question of liberty and the meaning of libertarianism.

I’m assuming that you want collectivist ownership of all production capital (you’re obviously free to say that assumption is incorrect—and I’ll gladly stand corrected). And, if you do favor such collectivist ownership, then you are actually for less liberty than a true libertarian because you would prohibit any production relationship other than a collectivist relationship, even if individuals wanted such relationships.

A true libertarian lets people make choices and doesn’t impose one (a collectivist) approach to economic production. A “[i]socialist[/i] libertarian” is actually anti-choice.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes and in a true libertarian paradise all people would be free to live under bridges not just the poor and all people could stay in five star hotels not just the rich. Oh wait did your system itself limit all my choices by the amount of money I start with? Nope no true liberty there if I don't get the gravy but just bones to gnaw on.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Oh wait did your system itself limit all my choices by the amount of money I start with?[/b]

Liberty does not mean equality.

As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America" (1831):

[i]"There is, in fact, a manly and lawful [b]passion for equality[/b] which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men [b]to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom[/b]."[/i]

I'll take my chances with liberty any day.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sorry you are talking out of both sides of your mouth simultaneously and I can't keep up.

Liberty is not equality liberty!! So is it having enough money to say fuck you to the world I can do what I want? What a wonderful vision of equality and liberty. If I was Bill Gates I would take my chances in your ideal liberty but if I was one of the millions starving in a capitalist hell holes like Haiti then my definition of liberty might include the ability to make a living without being exploited as the equivalent of a slave.

Sven Sven's picture

kropotkin1951, I don't think you understand that perfect liberty and perfect equality are at the opposite ends of a spectrum. Hence, the more you want equality, the less liberty you will have (and visa versa). I simply tend to favor more liberty than equality.

And, liberty is not just about money. Ms. Sven and I are not independently wealthy (and we certainly didn’t come from wealth—our moms stayed at home, my dad was a public school teacher, and her dad was a janitor who had an eighth grade education). Instead, I want the freedom (liberty) to pursue whatever dreams I want. If I want to work for or with someone and that someone wants to work with me or have me work for them, then that’s between us. I don’t want a collectivist equality imposed on me. I want the autonomy (the liberty) to set whatever goals I want and to pursue them, knowing that I may not be successful in reaching some or all of my goals.

Collectivism, while it can create more equality, kills autonomy. In a purely collectivist society, you must do what The Group wants you to do. If your goals mirror what The Group wants you to do, then you’re okay. Otherwise, you’re SOL.

That’s why I disagree that “[i]socialist[/i] libertarianism” is the “[i]true[/i] libertarianism”. Collectivism is the antithesis of liberty. And if “libertarianism” means anything, it stands for individual liberty.

Farmpunk

Damn. I think Beltov is correct. Chomsky's thesis does stand.

Course, I think his thesis is somewhat conflated academic bullshit. Good for discussion, not necessarily action.

Unionist: "I don't own "my own" house. You can buy a hammer and nails. You can also hire someone to build it for you. You should also be able to grow your own food, own cows for your own use, even sell the produce as far as I'm concerned. When the point comes where you have to hire employees (not contractors) to do the work for you, that's where I think society becomes immoral and unworkable. The division between rich and poor, owner and owned, free and chained, starts there. I would like to see it stop there."

I think the bears repeating. I still don't know where Unionist lives, or whether I can drop in and hang out awhile, though.

But I like his points about labour. I would much rather not have employees. Economy of scale is working against me if I try to go it alone, however. And they are against everyone, if you like to eat.

I know I beat on agriculture and food a lot on the boards, but until that most basic fact of production and supply of food is solved, I have trouble focussing on Chomsky's ivory tower thesis on who's the proper libertarian.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

quote:


I know I beat on agriculture and food a lot on the boards, but until that most basic fact of production and supply of food is solved, I have trouble focussing on Chomsky's ivory tower thesis on who's the proper libertarian.

I don't think Chomsky's claim is just an ivory tower thing. Of course, he wants to defend his own views, or find a hook to hang them on, but exposing the contradictions and problems associated with the right wing libertarianism - what I called propertarianism - is a useful service in the battle of ideas. Tearing away the ideological window dressing, showing that libertarianism is a misnomer for many of them - this is an intellectual service. Let those who want to defend the idolatry of private property do so without the fig leaf of respectability of liberty.

quote:

But I like his points about labour. I would much rather not have employees. Economy of scale is working against me if I try to go it alone, however. And they are against everyone, if you like to eat.

The fundamental socialist thesis is that once production is social, its benefits should be as well. No real socialist really wants individual production for everyone. But this belongs in a new thread about alternative social arrangements.

Somehow, I think a discussion about such arrangements will not interest everyone who IS interested in libertarianism or its defense.

Farmpunk

Agreed, and nicely put.

John K

quote:


Posted by Sven: Hence, the more you want equality, the less liberty you will have (and visa versa).

Sven, this sets up a false dichotomy. The opposite of liberty is not equality. It is tyranny. The opposite of equality is inequality.

I could just as easily characterize your vision of individual liberty as being a Hobbesian state of nature (solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short), in much the same way that you characterize equality as being forced collectivism.

Thankfully in democratic societies there is room to debate a range of political, social and economic choices between these polar extremes.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by John K:
[b]

Sven, this sets up a false dichotomy. The opposite of liberty is not equality. It is tyranny. The opposite of equality is inequality.

I could just as easily characterize your vision of individual liberty as being a Hobbesian state of nature (solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short), in much the same way that you characterize equality as being forced collectivism.

Thankfully in democratic societies there is room to debate a range of political, social and economic choices between these polar extremes.[/b]


I agree with much of what you have written here, John K, particularly the last two paragraphs. My preferences clearly [i]tend towards and strongly favor[/i] the liberty side of the spectrum. But, I don't take an absolutist view of liberty.

I suspect that most babblers have a similar position regarding collectivist equality (although some may reside at the extreme end of equality side of the spectrum).

The vast middle of society occupies some position near the middle and probably wavers back and forth slightly in one direction to another.

With regard to a false dichotomy, I don't agree with you there. To obtain perfect equality, a society would necessarily have to severely restrict individual choice in order to maintain that equality. Likewise, unfettered liberty will necessarily result in vast inequalities.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]With regard to a false dichotomy, I don't agree with you there. To obtain perfect equality, a society would necessarily have to severely restrict individual choice in order to maintain that equality. Likewise, unfettered liberty will necessarily result in vast inequalities.[/b]

Equality doesn't just translate to fair distribution of national income and having a few less billionaires per capita. It can also mean political empowerment for women.

Equality can mean having fewer elderly white males in top floor offices of tall and marble-clad buildings.

Equality can also mean one person equals one vote instead of first past the majority, and-or, several dollars equalling one vote.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20070... as a Public Utility[/url] Richard Cook

quote:

The [b]free market ideology[/b] current in the U.S. and, increasingly, in other Western nations which today are losing touch with their former social democratic history, [b]is the most extreme expression of private vs. public control of community life anywhere in the world in the last 6,000 years[/b]. . .

Concepts of private property were also applied to money once it was invented and became current in commerce and trade. . .

In Athens, Aristotle railed against compound interest, repelled by the idea that money, a sterile substance, should be allowed to multiply while its owner did nothing to enhance its productivity except to exact payment for its use from someone else.

Aristotle wrote: “The most hated sort [of wealth getting], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. And this term interest [tokos], which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Whereof of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural.” . .

Over time, both the [b]Greek and Roman cultures became thoroughly debt-ridden,[/b] leading to extreme stratification of social classes, endemic debt slavery, and eventual economic collapse. In fact, Hudson identifies the enormous “overhang” of debt as the principal cause of the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of the [b]Dark Ages.[/b]


Ghislaine

I think it needs to be stated that everyone in this thread is posting on a [b]privately-owned[/b] news and discussion forum. rabble.ca has a right to own this property, hire who they want, have employees (who work voluntarily and can quit at any time) and take whatever editorial viewpoint they like.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]I think it needs to be stated that everyone in this thread is posting on a [b]privately-owned[/b] news and discussion forum. rabble.ca has a right to own this property, hire who they want, have employees (who work voluntarily and can quit at any time) and take whatever editorial viewpoint they like.[/b]

I'm not quite sure why you thought that needed to be stated here. Perhaps you could explain?

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]I'm not quite sure why you thought that needed to be stated here. Perhaps you could explain?[/b]

Because this entire thread (and its pre-decessor) have been about why people should not have the right to private property or to having employees. I just want people to consider the consequences in practice for something like rabble.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see any consequences inherent to the example. What are you seeing?

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see any consequences inherent to the example. What are you seeing?[/b]

OK for starters, the current owners and architects of rabble.ca would not be allowed to own and control it. They would not be allowed to select or have employees. It would be public property and would therefore be under much different editorial guidelines. If it still existed, it would be a branch of the CBC basically.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

That's the difference. You see a 'Big Brother' State inherent in a new system, whereas I imagine communal ownership by the participants involved.

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]That's the difference. You see a 'Big Brother' State inherent in a new system, whereas I imagine communal ownership by the participants involved.[/b]

So who are the participants? If it is full state socialism, then it is all Canadians. If this is the case, editorial content will be affected and there will only be state media.

If you see it as a user-owned coop - those exist right now and no one is stopping rabble.ca from organizing in this manner. Why did they not operate in this way from the start? There are no changes required of society for rabble to operate in this manner.

But, if society is to deem these as the only way rabble can be run - then you better believe other things are going to be affected.

Fidel

If we have deregulation of telecom in Canada as per the U.S., we, too, could be paying up to ten times more than Europeans and Japanese for anything from broadband internet to no broadband competition and-or service whatsoever depending on where we live.

And things could be worse: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=39&t=000199#0... the lives of others[/url]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]So who are the participants? If it is full state socialism, then it is all Canadians. If this is the case, editorial content will be affected and there will only be state media.

If you see it as a user-owned coop - those exist right now and no one is stopping rabble.ca from organizing in this manner. Why did they not operate in this way from the start? There are no changes required of society for rabble to operate in this manner.

But, if society is to deem these as the only way rabble can be run - then you better believe other things are going to be affected.[/b]


This is actually a pretty good point, Ghislaine.

If a message board (and all message boards, if there were more than one) was owned communally by all members of society, then what would the editorial content be? Majority rule? No rules at all?

In a more libertarian society, an individual or group of individuals can own property (a message board), hire employees, and produce whatever content they want—even if the content does not coincide with the beliefs of those held by the majority of society.

Fidel
RosaL

Damn! I missed all the excitement!

Pages