Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Hello and welcome MVW

MVW I myself am a libertarian and decentralist and can provide you with info on many different kinds, both leftwing and rightwing and capitalist and socialist and in between. The American style libertarian stuff I see you have already been served with, here's links to different kinds of libertarianism to stir your imagination.

Index Page
An Anarchist FAQ Webpage
What Is Geolibertarianism?
libcom.org
Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Spunk Library - Anarchy, anarchist, and alternative materials
Leopold Kohr Online
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Molinari Institute
LARRY GAMBONE ARCHIVE
chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website
Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage

I hope those are of interest to you.

Thanks. I have spent a great deal of time looking into libertarianism and classical liberalism and see some familiar stuff in there. I am definitely pro-capitalism. I cant think of any breakthrough in the history of civilization , whether it be physics, the wheel or the computer, that has come about in any other way than thro individuals/capitalism. Nor do I know of any other system that offers as much freedom as it does. So, therefore, I doubt you could find anyone more anti-socialist then me. It has no logic to it that I can see.


From all my searching I have come to hold Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Hayak and Ayn Rand and their teachings , for want of a better word, in high esteem.

Labels are so often misunderstood, so I prefer to refrain from using them if I can, but if you are familiar with those 4 names , as you probably are, you'll have a good idea of my views on philosophy, politics and economics.
[Rep]

Welcome back to our humble corner of the net. :-)

Alex
[Rep]

Originally Posted by MVW:
Thanks. I have spent a great deal of time looking into libertarianism and classical liberalism and see some familiar stuff in there. I am definitely pro-capitalism. I cant think of any breakthrough in the history of civilization , whether it be physics, the wheel or the computer, that has come about in any other way than thro individuals/capitalism. Nor do I know of any other system that offers as much freedom as it does. So, therefore, I doubt you could find anyone more anti-socialist then me. It has no logic to it that I can see.

On the other hand it has seen the largest increase in the size of states in history and seems to have not greatly improved the average person's autonomy except for being able to buy flashy rubbish like flat screen TV. I myself sit rather in the middle if not to the libertarian and decentralist centre-left. I don't like forced collectivism certainly but I want economic decentralism as well as political and I want the average person to have more autonomy and freedom which means greater access to capital, so laissez capitalism based on a lockean idea of property doesn't appeal to me either. The other ideologies which can be called libertarian and even the socialist ones are worth knowing about. There are no more libertarian people in the world than social anarchists and people like Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Emma Goldman, Oscar Wilde etc etc

Originally Posted by :
From all my searching I have come to hold Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Hayak and Ayn Rand and their teachings , for want of a better word, in high esteem.

Labels are so often misunderstood, so I prefer to refrain from using them if I can, but if you are familiar with those 4 names , as you probably are, you'll have a good idea of my views on philosophy, politics and economics.

Rand is interesting although I lack quite the depth of knowledge of her work I'd like however. Friedman I find a bit vulgar, he is nowhere near radical enough in his libertarianism and decentralism in my view and went in a little too much for what Kevin Carson calls vulgar libertarianism ie the defence of corporate interests under a veil of free market rhetoric. Alot of Hayek's thought is excellent, he has a much firmer theoretical base in his ideas on knowledge than do many American style libertarians and their methodological individualism and that is because the Burkean conservative influence in his thought is obvious and much sounder than theories based on isolated, economically "rational" individuals wo form society simply through rationalistic attempts at utility maximisation. And Paul I'm not too up on but he seems just a politician and not a great thinker to me.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
I don't like forced collectivism certainly but I want economic decentralism as well as political and I want the average person to have more autonomy and freedom which means greater access to capital, so laissez capitalism based on a lockean idea of property doesn't appeal to me either

How would you ensure greater access to capital without curtailing the freedom of others?

"economic decentralism" sounds like code words for socialism to me

Originally Posted by :
Friedman I find a bit vulgar, he is nowhere near radical enough in his libertarianism and decentralism in my view and went in a little too much for what Kevin Carson calls vulgar libertarianism ie the defence of corporate interests under a veil of free market rhetoric

Having read and watched alot of Friedman I can only disagree with that assessment. Just because he prefers freedom for all does not mean he is for big business, tho that is how some ,intentionally, describe him.

The way I see it if you are not for freedom for all, you are not for freedom at all.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by MVW:
How would you ensure greater access to capital without curtailing the freedom of others?

I'd simply limit absentee ownership in some way, depending on the area. Now I'm pretty sure your definition of freedom equals lockean property rights so you'll find that a scandalous attack on freedom no matter the context, but if you have a more profound idea of freedom, humanity and society you certainly would not automatically jump to such conclusions.

Originally Posted by :
"economic decentralism" sounds like code words for socialism to me

Depends how you define the word socialism. It has several definition depending on your opinion or knowledge of it. I'm certainly not scared of the word socialist however. And I don't support centralised state ownership nor in most circumstances any other kind of enforced collective ownership and wish to see great independence for the individual.

Originally Posted by :
Having read and watched alot of Friedman I can only disagree with that assessment. Just because he prefers freedom for all does not mean he is for big business, tho that is how some ,intentionally, describe him.

I have read alot of his work too. I find him both not radical enough and too simplistic. Although that is an accusation I can level at much of American style libertarianism. Not that I don't admire it and I'm influenced by it, it is just one of my least favourite libertarian and decentralist movements.

Originally Posted by :
The way I see it if you are not for freedom for all, you are not for freedom at all.

The way I see it is that if you simply define freedom in terms of a lockean idea of property rights then you are being simplistic and certainly do not have all the answers for human political and social organisation.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
I'd simply limit absentee ownership in some way, depending on the area

Originally Posted by :
And I don't support centralised state ownership nor in most circumstances any other kind of enforced collective ownership and wish to see great independence for the individual.

Can you see the contradiction?

Originally Posted by :
but if you have a more profound idea of freedom, humanity and society you certainly would not automatically jump to such conclusions.

I think "profound" is the wrong word to use.
No-one owns the planet, not even the government. There is no way around it. There is no perfect solution. The only way to deal with this is to be able to own your creation . ie your house
Is your more "profound" idea to allow me to walk into your home without your consent?

Originally Posted by :
The way I see it is that if you simply define freedom in terms of a lockean idea of property rights then you are being simplistic and certainly do not have all the answers for human political and social organisation

.

Why do you feel the need to complicate the matter?(of course freedom isnt just property rights - freedom is the ability to do anything you want to do aslong as you dont hurt others) I own my life. I own my creation/s. Do I not?
Again, there is no perfect system, atleast not atm, but free markets and owning your own creation/s is the best we have/had/could have.

I dont think anyone or any system professes to have all the answers. Do you? :P

Instead of just criticizing others, perhaps you could state how your superior , more radical, system would work? Seems to me you just want to conveniently brush under the carpet the idea of ownership to make your system/ideas pertain to freedom. I could be wrong but thats how it seems.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by MVW:
Can you see the contradiction?

Not at all. And believe me I have thought and read alot on this.

Originally Posted by :
I think "profound" is the wrong word to use.
No-one owns the planet, not even the government. There is no way around it. There is no perfect solution. The only way to deal with this is to be able to own your creation . ie your house
Is your more "profound" idea to allow me to walk into your home without your consent?

I think it is more profound to realise that society and humanity is not made up of isolated, economically "rational" utility maximisers who have little real interaction except hedonistic, "rational" transactions and who are best served by always and everywhere enforcing a very sticky version of lockean property rights. To be honest I do like some American style libertarians but decentralist conservatism is more theoretically sound and insightful.

Originally Posted by :
Why do you feel the need to complicate the matter?(of course freedom isnt just property rights - freedom is the ability to do anything you want to do aslong as you dont hurt others) I own my life. I own my creation/s. Do I not?

You do not own the earth or natural resources necessarily there is no clear cut answer at least to that from the idea of self-ownership.

Originally Posted by :
I dont think anyone or any system professes to have all the answers. Do you? :P

Certainly not. Many American style libertarians however do seem to try to answer everything with a few deductions from the tautological axiom of self-ownership. It is all extremely dubious of course because the moment you move from the individual to nature then it gets quickly murky.
[Rep]

Of course there is a contradiction. You are forcefully stopping someone from pursuing something that is not harming others.

As for getting into nature. If your argument against property rights is that you dont own the materials ie. wood from the tree etc then , well, i wont even get into it because its utterly pointless. All I'd ask you is where do you live? so I can come and take all your possessions :-)


decentralist conservatism? What does that even mean? Conservatism is to conserve ... atleast in my understanding.

Again, Instead of just criticizing others, perhaps you could state how your superior , more radical, system would work(or link to it) Seems to me you just want to conveniently brush under the carpet the idea of ownership to make your system/ideas pertain to freedom. I could be wrong but thats how it seems.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by MVW:
Of course there is a contradiction. You are forcefully stopping someone from pursuing something that is not harming others.

But is that is the point, I believe it does harm people. It allows more monopolisation of natural resources and land by a minority and decreases the ability of most to get access to their own personal capital and therefore their autonomy and freedom is decreased.

Originally Posted by :
As for getting into nature. If your argument against property rights is that you dont own the materials ie. wood from the tree etc then , well, i wont even get into it because its utterly pointless. All I'd ask you is where do you live? so I can come and take all your possessions :-)

This is not a sound response at all. I did not argue against property rights but the basis you are giving for them and most importantly unlimited and absentee ownership of land.

Originally Posted by :
decentralist conservatism? What does that even mean? Conservatism is to conserve ... atleast in my understanding.

Paleoconservatism is an example.

Originally Posted by :
Again, Instead of just criticizing others, perhaps you could state how your superior , more radical, system would work(or link to it) Seems to me you just want to conveniently brush under the carpet the idea of ownership to make your system/ideas pertain to freedom. I could be wrong but thats how it seems.

I don't know what you mean by brushing the idea of ownership under the carpet. I don't believe in anything like "natural" rights to a lockean idea of private property but I think private property is important and that it should be more well dispersed and that the average person should have easier access to that which he needs for his own occupancy and direct use.
[Rep]

So you arnt infact against property rights just that you want it to be distributed more fairly.

How would you even go about doing such a thing? Tell rich people how they can spend their money (de facto , owning all income) ? Have the government , by default, own all the land?
Lets get past the moral implications and even the anti-freedom aspects here and mention how inefficient government is , not to mention the massive lobbying for land that would no doubt occur. Theres also the massive administration costs.

I used to work for the local government in the community(council) housing repair sector and I can tell you now that we spent millions upon millions of pounds per year just repairing keyholes and fences in a very small radius ...probably about an 8-12 mile radius.

If the above isnt the answer what could allow the poor to get more property? a massive minimum wage?


You are being massively vague I have to say. Lots of "shoulds" but now many "hows".
[Rep]