Is private property incompatible with libertarianism?

100 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2008-08-07 04:32

Ghislaine

quote:

Frankly, I have no precise idea of who "owns" it now. Do you? I'll bet you don't. You just seem to have pure faith that as long as it's owned by some individual or individuals, it's in safer hands than if it were communally owned. Your instincts are definitely the opposite of mine, and I think mine are better rooted in the Canadian experience than yours are.

I do not know who the legal owners are. I do know that there have been an awful lot of threads on CBC and how babblers are annoyed with bias and their reporting. As a private organization, rabble is accountable to us as readers and commenters and if do not keep coming back and clicking and if they don't satisfy us with content - we will not return, which means no advertisers and no donations.

If it were appropriated into some type of extension of CBC - I highly doubt that most members here would be celebrating.

If Jack Layton ran the next election on the promise of making all property is this country universally-owned, I guarantee he would lose seats.

Thu, 2008-08-07 04:38

#53

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]If Jack Layton ran the next election on the promise of making all property is this country universally-owned, I guarantee he would lose seats.[/b]

We don't have elections. We just get pitchforks and take property away from hard-working citizens. Haven't you heard?

Thu, 2008-08-07 04:45

#54

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
We don't have elections. We just get pitchforks and take property away from hard-working citizens. Haven't you heard?[/b]

haha - I am seriously and sincerely trying to discuss this. I did use to share your views.

Thu, 2008-08-07 04:48

#55

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]haha - I am seriously and sincerely trying to discuss this. [/b]

Me too. But when we're discussing the merits of private vs. communal ownership and you start up about suppression of ideas, I consider you to be drifting. George W. Bush just criticized China for cracking down on dissidents.

quote:

[b]I did use to share your views.[/b]

See? You once understood the value of sharing.

Thu, 2008-08-07 05:04

#56

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
See? You once understood the value of sharing.[/b]

When I own nothing, there is nothing to share. The verb sharing implies some sort of free will or property to be shared. When everything is shared, then nothing really is - as there was no choice in the matter.

I am huge believer in coops, etc. PEI actually has a wonderful history of them and there are a lot of successes in this regard. However, we also have a history of horrible failures in terms of government-run and controlled enterprises.

I am not a libertarian though, as a I believe in a welfare state. From my study of political philosophy, socialist libertarianism is a bit of an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves social darwinism - rather than a social safety net to help those in need. I also think that private property is a citizen's right and that equality of opportunity, not of outcome is an important value. There should be a minimum standard of outcome ensured by a well-managed and well-funded welfare state.

I am currently looking to buy a home and my partner wants to own his own business from home. I would not give up the right to own either without a fight. There currently are no private property rights in this country, and I witnessed part of our family farm appropriated by the Province to make way for a highway. Saying no was not an option. This experience helped change my views, which I had developped in university after studying various political theories and social work.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

Thu, 2008-08-07 05:23

#57

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]When I own nothing, there is nothing to share. [/b]

Nonsense. The history of the FN of NA give lie to that statement.

quote:

[b]I witnessed part of our family farm appropriated by the Province to make way for a highway. Saying no was not an option. [/b]

Oh, so you wanted some other farmer/person to have their land taken not your own, then, or do you boycott said hwy?

And I am not even going to go into the fact, that the land your families farm is on is stolen from other peoples, for whom saying NO was not an option, either.

quote:

[b]This experience helped change my views, which I had developped in university after studying various political theories and social work.[/b]

Oh, so something emotional happened to you, and you chucked out all rational thought, because you feel you have a right to your privilege, while you obviously believe others do not, now!? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Thu, 2008-08-07 05:39

#58

Unionist

When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose.

Go ahead and fight for your house and your business, Ghislaine. When you come up against the interests of society, it will be a lonely battle indeed. And the very last ones to support you will be the other property-owners of this world.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:06

#59

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Go ahead and fight for your house and your business, Ghislaine. When you come up against the interests of society, it will be a lonely battle indeed. And the very last ones to support you will be the other property-owners of this world.[/b]

unionist, you're dreamin'. Nothing wrong with dreamin' but the reality is that there is no massive groundswell in North America to take all of the property now held in private hand and disburse it to "the masses". There's not even an inkling of such a groundswell. Are people talking about things like tweaking tax rates to make them more progressive? Yes. But, neither Canada or America (nor any other significant capitalist country in the world) is anywhere near a trajectory aimed at communal property ownership.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:16

#60

remind

Speak for your own country Sven, as apparently you know sweet fuck all about Canadians, ok?! We have a lot of communal property ownership in Canada, and if the governments ever tried taking it out of our jointly owned hands, and giving it to private ownership, there would be some serious anger and backlash against them going on.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:24

#61

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b] Oh, so something emotional happened to you, and you chucked out all rational thought, because you feel you have a right to your privilege, while you obviously believe others do not, now!? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

Ok, first of all I am well aware of the history of FN peoples and I happen to believe that they have been the most abused in Canada by the lack of property rights. All land claims should be settled immediately - with FN bands getting full property rights that cannot ever be taken away by the government. This can be done communely.

I have nothing at all against communal ownership - but I am against government ownership and the lack of a legal concept of ownership.

And no, I did not think another farmer should lose their land over that. If no farmers were willing to sell the land they needed, then the highway should not have gone through in that locale.

And speaking as a Canadian about this country, there is no groundswell movement for government ownership of all land and property. Most people I know want to own a home and land.

I think we need much stricter (and strongly enforced) environmental regulations but that we also need to ensure property rights are guaranteed. This would benefit FN people more than anyone at the moment, as most of their land is currently technically owned by the government.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:37

#62

Unionist

Ghislaine, don't confuse owning a home and land with owning means of production. If you want the right to own a home and land, that doesn't bother me. The right to own a business where you employ others? That will be at the pleasure of society. If that's a sacred right for you, then we're on different planets.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:37

#63

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Speak for your own country Sven, as apparently you know sweet fuck all about Canadians, ok?! We have a lot of communal property ownership in Canada, and if the governments ever tried taking it out of our jointly owned hands, and giving it to private ownership, there would be some serious anger and backlash against them going on.[/b]

Who is arguing here for "taking [property] out of our jointly owned hands, and giving it to private ownership"?

That's not even being discussed here.

ETA: If you think that's a concern, why don't you start a thread on it?

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:43

#64

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]The right to own a business where you employ others? That will be at the pleasure of society.[/b]

And the "pleasure of society" is private ownership. There is, at most, a microscopic minority who want to communalize productive capital. And that is about as likely to change as gravity reversing direction.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:43

#65

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ghislaine, don't confuse owning a home and land with owning means of production. If you want the right to own a home and land, that doesn't bother me. The right to own a business where you employ others? That will be at the pleasure of society. If that's a sacred right for you, then we're on different planets.[/b]

What about the right to own a business where no one else is employed? My man wants to record albums and have solely his own artistic judgment used in the process. Having a government-run, communally-owned recording company would jeopardize his artistic control over the final product.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:44

#66

remind

Ghislaine, your thought process is inconsistent, at best. If all FN land claims were settled immediately, you would not have your family farm, seeing as how all of PEI, is under Mi’kmaq land claims.

As to your belief, that if no farmers wanted to sell their land, the hwy should have gone elsewhere, I would ask where?

90% of PEI is privately owned, the other 10% is in parks/nature reserves, or is part of the 2 Mi’kmaq communities on Prince Edward Island tracts of land.

Furthermore, did you know that FN's in Canada do not want your notion of private ownership of lands?

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:47

#67

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]
What about the right to own a business where no one else is employed? My man wants to record albums and have solely his own artistic judgment used in the process. Having a government-run, communally-owned recording company would jeopardize his artistic control over the final product.[/b]

Oh, he could do that. But, he couldn't hire, for example, a sound engineer or any studio musicians (or anyone else, for that matter) to help him . If he hired someone, that would be "exploitation". And, I would feel very, very bad for that poor exploited soul.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:48

#68

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Furthermore, did you know that FN's in Canada do not want your notion of private ownership of lands?[/b]

Is that uniformly true?

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:53

#69

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b] Having a government-run, communally-owned recording company would jeopardize his artistic control over the final product.[/b]

How so?

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:55

#70

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Ghislaine, your thought process is inconsistent, at best. If all FN land claims were settled immediately, you would not have your family farm, seeing as how all of PEI, is under Mi’kmaq land claims.
As to your belief, that if no farmers wanted to sell their land, the hwy should have gone elsewhere, I would ask where?
90% of PEI is privately owned, the other 10% is in parks/nature reserves, or is part of the 2 Mi’kmaq communities on Prince Edward Island tracts of land.
Furthermore, did you know that FN's in Canada do not want your notion of private ownership of lands?[/b]

I am saying land claims settled in a way that respects all parties currently involved in the process. This is really thread drift, but however land claims play out there are going to be people of European descent that lose land. The government process should compensate them appropriately, but this process is not going to be easy obviously. It has been building up for centuries and those that originally refused to grant land rights to FN people, or got them to sign unfair treaties in a different language are now deceased. I do think that the settling of land claims in an issue of foremost importance to ending the continued racist oppression of FN people in this country.

I do not know what you think my notion of private ownership is, but what do they want out of land claims then? I think the Nis'ga agreement is a perfect example of a FN having complete control without government interference. I fully support the right of FN or any other Canadians to own land communally - I am just saying that it should be voluntary. The situation right now is that reserve land is owned by the government. And how do you speak for all FN people?

If a highway cannot be built, then it cannot be built.

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:56

#71

Sven

As I mentioned above:

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I’ve worked as a:
■ Newspaper carrier
■ Janitor
■ Painter
■ Radio dispatcher
■ Retail clerk
■ Sunflower roguer (walking field to remove certain plants by hand)
■ Tutor
■ Door-to-door sales
■ Elder caretaker
■ Accountant
■ Lawyer[/b]

I never realized that I should have felt "oppressed", "exploited", or in a "class struggle" because I was never the owner of the businesses for which I worked.

By the way, in each instance, I willingly took the job because it was in my best interests to do so. Nor do I recall anyone putting a gun to my head (although it's possible that someone did, I suspect I would remember that if that had been the case).

Thu, 2008-08-07 06:57

#72

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]
How so?[/b]

Because others would have a say over everything from editing to which studio musicians to use, etc.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:08

#73

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]I am saying land claims settled in a way that respects all parties currently involved in the process. [/b]

This translates into: "it is now our lands, just because we stole it from you, matters not, you take what we will give, as we will not be inconvienced."

quote:

[b]however land claims play out there are going to be people of European descent that lose land. [/b]

Just not your folk, eh?!

quote:

[b]The government process should compensate them appropriately,[/b]

why?

quote:

[b] but this process is not going to be easy obviously. [/b]

Understatement that means nothing.

quote:

[b] those that originally refused to grant land rights to FN people, or got them to sign unfair treaties in a different language are now deceased. [/b]

Point? So what if they are dead?

quote:

[b]I do think that the settling of land claims in an issue of foremost importance to ending the continued racist oppression of FN people in this country. [/b]

Here I agree with you, it would be a start.

quote:

[b]I do not know what you think my notion of private ownership is, but what do they want out of land claims then?[/b]

They, as a collective, want control of their lands, they do not want their lands divided up into private individual person's property.

quote:

[b] I think the Nis'ga agreement is a perfect example of a FN having complete control without government interference.[/b]

The Nis'ga agreement is not a personal property agreement, it is a collective ownership of said property.

quote:

[b] And how do you speak for all FN people? [/b]

I am not.

quote:

[b]If a highway cannot be built, then it cannot be built.[/b]

If you are unwilling to give up a small portion of your stolen land for the betterment of the collective community PEI community, you sure as hell, will not be willing to give it up to FN land claims.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:19

#74

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]They, as a collective, want control of their lands, they do not want their lands divided up into private individual person's property.[/b]

I'm not sure what Canadian law is but in America, it is federal American Indian law that [b]prohibits[/b] American Indians from breaking land rights into individual ownership, even if a tribe or tribal members want to. It seems to me that tribes should be free to do whatever they want with their land.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:29

#75

remind

Not enetering into any FN discussion with you Sven.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:30

#76

N.Beltov

quote:

Sven: I never realized that I should have felt "oppressed", "exploited", or in a "class struggle" because I was never the owner of the businesses for which I worked.

Ha ha. I see that you are now quoting yourself with the previous misleading remarks you made. I think I will do the same ...

quote:

For Sven: Just as a general remark, social class is not a subjective category, even if the boundaries of social classes are not as precise as points on a number line. It is an objective concept, founded on the social relations between people that exist in their productive (work) activity. "Oppressed" has got nothing to do with it, as I suspect you know.
Chomsky's point, which you seem to have gloriously misunderstood, is that a doctrine founded on the "freedom" to dispose of my own labour and the wealth generated by that labour as I see fit is a strange justification for social arrangements that condemn the vast majority to the private dictatorships of businesses controlled and/or owned by others.
Playing with "ownership", "oppression" and other loosely defined terms just shows what a prisoner of such views you yourself are.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:33

#77

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b] If you are unwilling to give up a small portion of your stolen land for the betterment of the collective community PEI community, you sure as hell, will not be willing to give it up to FN land claims.[/b]

You are not reading what I am writing. I think the Nisga agreement is a great example because that FN now has property rights, rights that do not belong to the government. I realize that the majority of FN do not want personal, private rights - but want them communally. I agree with this. I am just saying that they do not want all landed owned communally by all Canadians. They want their land owned commanally by their own band, with full control in their hands. This is what I agree with.

What I meant by all parties need to be compensated is that those who will lose their current land and homes under land claims deals need to be compensated. The land was stolen a long time ago and they bought it long after it was stolen. And yes, even if this was my own family farm I would support this. Once land claims are settled though, full property rights should be respected legally to all in this country. I do not support the government defining what is "for the good of society" in appropriating our land. A highway with emissions-spewing cards is for the good of the Island, eh? Pesticide-application in our cancer-ridden Island may be deemed for the good of all by some government. This is why property rights are important, as well as strong environmental regulations.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:37

#78

Farmpunk

Oh, crap. I forgot. In Unionist's utopia my firearms would be in a locker in Ottowa, where I could sign one out when needed.

Put my name on the request form now, please, will ya?

Unionist, clarify, please. You can own a home that was built by other people (unless you did it yourself) and that's okay? Do those workers have a basic right to your home?

Remind's point about FN and land is bang on and can not be argued with. I'm going to dig up a great quote by Wendell Berry, his introduction to Unsettling of America.

In my part of the world, FN and small farmers have more in common than not, and are actively working together in some instances. Not to say it's an ideal situation, especially for the FN.

LTJ also makes a solid point.

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:40

#79

Sven

N.Beltov, are you saying that social classes have nothing to do with "oppression" or "exploitation"?

Thu, 2008-08-07 07:45

#80

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]Because others would have a say over everything from editing to which studio musicians to use, etc.[/b]

Why would anyone else have any say over editing? Seems like you are building strawmen to kick down.

Thu, 2008-08-07 08:16

#81

N.Beltov

quote:

Sven: N.Beltov, are you saying that social classes have nothing to do with "oppression" or "exploitation"?

It's an objective category. What the consequences of class rule (by this or that class) is another matter. As you know, I think, very well.

I notice that you haven't addressed Chomsky's main point. Here's a reminder in case you forgot:

quote:

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”.

Thu, 2008-08-07 08:53

#82

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]You are not reading what I am writing.[/b]

Yes actually, I am.

quote:

[b] I think the Nisga agreement is a great example because that FN now has property rights, rights that do not belong to the government. [/b]

It is not "that" FN it is "those" FN.

quote:

[b]I realize that the majority of FN do not want personal, private rights - but want them communally. [/b]

You are not speaking as if you know this, as you are insisting that they have personal property rights.

quote:

[b]I am just saying that they do not want all landed owned communally by all Canadians. [/b]

How do you know this? Are you not speaking for them?

quote:

[b]They want their land owned commanally by their own band, with full control in their hands. This is what I agree with.[/b]

Well then, stop advocating the notion they want personal private ownership of land.

quote:

[b]What I meant by all parties need to be compensated is that those who will lose their current land and homes under land claims deals need to be compensated. [/b]

Why? In essence they have been squatting on other peoples land, it matters not how long.

quote:

[b]The land was stolen a long time ago and they bought it long after it was stolen.[/b]

have you forgotten all you took in unversity? As I am sure you took courses in SW on property rights. If someone is in possession of stolen property, it does not become theirs just beacause they bought it. It is returned to the rightful owners and the purchaser of said stolen property is outta fuckin luck and the money they paid for it. Or are you suggesting news property laws be made up for white folk that if we buy stolen property it becomes ours and the original owner is otta fuckin luck???

quote:

[b] And yes, even if this was my own family farm I would support this.[/b]

I doubt that. Words are cheap, actions say more.

quote:

[b]I do not support the government defining what is "for the good of society" in appropriating our land. [/b]

It again is, not your land.

Moreover, you appear to believe that those with private ownership should be able to do whatever they want with their land because they would always do what is best. Not fucking likely.

quote:

[b]A highway with emissions-spewing cards is for the good of the Island, eh? [/b]

How many people died, or were seriously injured, or had further potential to, on the old highway ghislaine?

quote:

[b]Pesticide-application in our cancer-ridden Island may be deemed for the good of all by some government.[/b]

short sighted as always it seems, and what if all the private owners decided they could spread DDT's and other herbicieds/pesticides all over "their" property, ghislaine?

quote:

[b] This is why property rights are important, as well as strong environmental regulations.[/b]

You are arguing against your own premise here.

Thu, 2008-08-07 08:56

#83

Papal Bull

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]
Why would anyone else have any say over editing? Seems like you are building strawmen to kick down.[/b]

Well, it would have to conform to whatever bureaucratic tape is put up by the governmental body funding this program, ergo, it would seem reasonable that, like the film credit changes, there would be more direct intervention by those involved in funding.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:02

#84

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]They want their land owned commanally by their own band, with full control in their hands. This is what I agree with. [/b]

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Well then, stop advocating the notion they want personal private ownership of land. [/b]

Ghislaine, where did you argue that FN want personal private ownership of land?

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:06

#85

Ghislaine

Remind, I am only going to say this once more.

I fully support communal property ownership by First Nations. I think they should have that right and land claims should be settled. I think they should own this land seperate from other Canadians (like the Nis'ga) and have 100% control over this land and constitutional protection (notwithstanding strong environmental regulations). Property rights can be communal or individual. What I am against is 100% of all land in Canada being universally by all Canadians. FN land is currently owned by the federal government, ie all Canadians. How is that working out?

In regards to some of your other points - yes I think there should be compensation if settlers are on land deemed to be the property of FN is land claims settlements. 100% of this country is stolen and you cannot kick 100% of all Canadians off of their land with no compensation. And obviously 100% of this country is not going to be put in FN ownership. The people who stole it are dead and the people who it was stolen from are dead, so what is urgently needed (and has been needed for centuries) is a fair and just resolution for the descendants. This is thread drift, so I will drop this.

The federal government has oppressed, racially discriminated against and attempted genocide on FN people. They should have no control over or say in their land, once land claims are final.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:07

#86

remind

Another strawman papalbull. If it is publically owned, one would just slot their time in and use it how they would, no differently than privately owned. You can't churn out hate, child abuse or snuff films, in a privately owned studio either.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:10

#87

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
[b]Well, it would have to conform to whatever bureaucratic tape is put up by the governmental body funding this program, ergo, it would seem reasonable that, like the film credit changes, there would be more direct intervention by those involved in funding.[/b]

No shit. An individual running her own recording studio would have more autonomy over what was produced and how it was produced than if the studio was owned, long-stock-and barrel, by the government. To seriously question that is to not understand how private businesses are run, how governments operate, or both.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:12

#88

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Another strawman papalbull. If it is publically owned, one would just slot their time in and use it how they would, no differently than privately owned. You can't churn out hate, child abuse or snuff films, in a privately owned studio either.[/b]

Research the process to become a professional musiciam in Cuba and what happens if you fail the state test and get back to us.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:31

#89

remind

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b] You can't churn out hate, child abuse or snuff films, in a privately owned studio either.[/b]

To quote myself as Sven does, there is government oversight of all privately owned enterprises, for the good of the people contained within the state, by the state.

Throwing up "communist" red herrings shows me where you at ghislaine, and we already knew where sven was at.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:34

#90

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]Research the process to become a professional musiciam in Cuba and what happens if you fail the state test and get back to us.[/b]

I hope this doesn't become a thread about Cuba!

I think it's more fundamental than that, Ghislaine. I can certainly envision a system whereby there was no government censorship regarding what art was produced in the government-owned studio. However, the first time controversial or "offensive" art was produced in a publicly-funded studio which resulted in any significant public uproar, then the politicians would come flocking in to "address the issue".

But, more fundamentally, why should a person be prohibited from putting a recording studio in his or her home? Why should a person have to get into a queue with other musicians to get access to limited studio recording time in a government-run studio? If a musician wants to put her or his money into recording equipment, the government should stay the fuck out of it.

ETA: And if the musician wants to hire a bass player and a drummer on a recording and if the musician can find the individuals willing to do it, what business is it of the government what they do???

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:38

#91

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]...there is government oversight of all privately owned enterprises, for the good of the people contained within the state, by the state.[/b]

What possible "good of the people" would protected by prohibiting an individual from opening her own recording studio in her home and, instead, requiring that they use a government-run studio?

I'd love to her what that might be.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:40

#92

Farmpunk

Shit. This thread will likely be closed for length before Unionist - or anyone else - answers my question.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:41

#93

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]Shit. This thread will likely be closed for length before Unionist - or anyone else - answers my question.[/b]

Never fear. Another thread can be opened without seeking government authorization.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:44

#94

Farmpunk

I'd have to contact my cell leader first.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:44

#95

N.Beltov

I find it amusing that all the defenders of right wing libertarianism have studiously avoided addressing the question with which I started this thread. That too, however, is a kind of "answer".

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:44

#96

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]
To quote myself as Sven does, there is government oversight of all privately owned enterprises, for the good of the people contained within the state, by the state.
Throwing up "communist" red herrings shows me where you at ghislaine, and we already knew where sven was at.[/b]

The communist red herrings are from those who do not think that Canadians should be able to own businesses (or land or houses).

There should continue to be government oversight, regulations and proper enforcement on private property. Your points about the environment above ignore what I have said about this. private property rights should in no way exempt one from these laws. DDT is illegal and anyone caught using it should face serious consequences. it is the idea of "your freedom ends where mine begins". Currently on the Island, our waterways are all going anoxic due to excessive use of fertilizers and manure. My believing that this should be much more strongly regulated and controlled does not at all mean that I don't think farmers should own their land and businesses.

Thu, 2008-08-07 09:52

#97

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I find it amusing that all the defenders of right wing libertarianism have studiously avoided addressing the question with which I started this thread. That too, however, is a kind of "answer".[/b]

The question presumes that "[i]true[/i] libertarianism" is necessarily defined as "[i]socialist[/i] libertarianism".

If "true libertarianism" is "socialist libertarianism", then I want no part of "true libertarianism".

And, it's simplistic to call non-socialist libertarianism "rightwing libertarianism". Non-socialist libertarianism is clearly a mixture of progressive principles (individual civil liberties) and rightwing principles (individual property rights).

Thu, 2008-08-07 10:01

#98

Fidel

I get the feeling that international banksters plan on becoming wealthy land barons when the system does finally collapse. They will end up owning everything in sight not democratically elected governments. Globalization of middle class capitalism based on consumption was a colossal cold war era lie.

I think that right-wing politicians were able to attract a certain percentage of middle class support for their neoLiberal agenda during the 1980's and 90's. The agenda and expansion of support is stalled in the meantime. They certainly would find it difficult to forge ahead in the U.S. and Canada if advanced democracy was suddenly made law of the land. The time for even Keynes' mixed market democracy has come and gone. Rock and a hard place.

Thu, 2008-08-07 10:02

#99

N.Beltov

quote:

The question presumes that "[i]true[/i] libertarianism" is necessarily defined as "[i]socialist[/i] libertarianism".

False. I've simply provided babblers with an opportunity to read more about libertarian views, like those of Noam Chomsky, beyond the quote I provided.

quote:

If "true libertarianism" is "socialist libertarianism", then I want no part of "true libertarianism".

This is more of the same. It's premised on your previous falsehood.

quote:

And, it's simplistic to call non-socialist libertarianism "rightwing libertarianism". Non-socialist libertarianism is clearly a mixture of progressive principles (individual civil liberties) and rightwing principles (individual property rights).

That's Chomsky's whole point. The libertarianism that you are defending includes property rights for some people that necessarily imply the lack of liberty for others.

So you agree with Chomsky. The only way you can make this misanthropic ideology hold together is by making it an eclectic pile of contradictory bird droppings. Ha ha. What a lightweight.

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

Thu, 2008-08-07 10:06

#100

jrose

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
Never fear. Another thread can be opened without seeking government authorization.[/b]

Sure about that? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Closing this one up for length. Please open a new thread.

Pages

Topic locked