Originally Posted by :
By 'see no' do you mean that you have never seen an argument put forward for this, or that you find them all inconclusive?

They all seem inconclusive.

Originally Posted by :
I mean what is the current commonly accepted definition of libertarianism.

That is the American meaning. Outside the internet and America it doesn't necessarily have that meaning, globally it is as often take to be leftwing.

Originally Posted by :
Secondly, I never made the argument that the Lockean idea of ownership necessitates this ideology, which is why I made it clear that I was talking about Nozick's reformation of the Lockean proviso. However, concerning whether I own myself or not, whether or not Locke said this is irrelevant. I don't see an axiom such as this up for debate. Furthermore, the majority of modern interpretations of Locke would place him as a precursor to (or a member of) the modern libertarian/classical liberal movement (obviously after we, like with Aristotle, ignore the small sections on slavery and such). So I don't really understand what you are implying by the latter part of this statement.

I don't think classical liberals are the same as modern, American style libertarians. Classical liberalism is a nuanced and diverse movement which has influenced most modern ideologies. But that is not what I was saying.

Originally Posted by :
I don't agree that this would be the case. However, the Geolibertarian stance does the exact opposite, it restricts freedom in the opposite direction.

I don't see how.

What I'm looking for is an iron-clad argument from you why your version of lockean property rights, the Nozick one, is necessarily, always and in all contexts and situations, the route to liberty.

Personally I don't define economic liberty in terms of a version of property rights like that. I define it in terms of the real autonomy and freedom an individual has over his creative activity. And if local convetion can increase this by making the local rules of property conform to a less "sticky"(ie a kind of ownership which allows less absentee ownership.) version of property then I have no problem with this.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
They all seem inconclusive.

Then I don't think I will be able to convince you. But as I said, society should be based upon civic rights out of utility anyway.

Originally Posted by :
That is the American meaning. Outside the internet and America it doesn't necessarily have that meaning, globally it is as often take to be leftwing.

Maybe I am just ignorant, but I have never actually come across this left-wing meaning that you talk of. Furthermore, I have never heard the term libertarianism (above) described as the American type. When I learned about libertarianism at university two years ago, it was the above definition that was given, nothing was ever said about any left-wing ideology (except when we contrasted Nozick with Rawls). We did speak of left-libertarianism, but it was specifically named "left-libertarianism", whereas the libertarianism above was described as just "libertarianism". I have never seen is described in any left-wing terms except as "left-libertarianism".

Originally Posted by :
I don't see how.

You're claim that absentee ownership affects the liberties of others can be reversed to say that making absentee ownership illegal infringes upon the liberties of those that wish to be absentee owners.

Originally Posted by :
What I'm looking for is an iron-clad argument from you why your version of lockean property rights, the Nozick one, is necessarily, always and in all contexts and situations, the route to liberty.

I gave Nozick's one already, which you dismissed on the lines that there were many competing theories of property - which I completely accepted and made clear that I was arguing on utilitarian grounds.

You seem to be trying to shift the discussion onto something that we were not really talking about. Furthermore, just because there are many theories of property rights/ownership doesn't mean that this particular one is false or any less or more utilitarian than another.

Originally Posted by :
Personally I don't define economic liberty in terms of a version of property rights like that.

By rights in this sentence, do you mean natural or legal ones? Because as I said in my previous post, it is really irrelevant which (which Tito also made clear when he argued for utilitarian/legal rights as opposed to natural ones).

Originally Posted by :
I define it in terms of the real autonomy and freedom an individual has over his creative activity.

Then I might just as well ask, as you have done, what justifies this view over another?

However, I have absolutely no disagreement with this, however, I think that can be achieved within a Lockean/Nozickian view of property

Originally Posted by :
And if local convetion can increase this by making the local rules of property conform to a less "sticky"(ie a kind of ownership which allows less absentee ownership.) version of property then I have no problem with this.

I might agree with you that absentee ownership does cause problems in some cases, but certainly not in all (I know this is not what you said). The real question is whether or not the rates of absentee ownership that we often see today (and in the past) came about by a just theory of property? I would obviously answer no.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Hitler was already Chancellor when the fire happened.

Conceded, my mistake. The President still held his reigns until he was convinced into giving emergency powers.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:


Maybe I am just ignorant, but I have never actually come across this left-wing meaning that you talk of. Furthermore, I have never heard the term libertarianism (above) described as the American type. When I learned about libertarianism at university two years ago, it was the above definition that was given, nothing was ever said about any left-wing ideology (except when we contrasted Nozick with Rawls). We did speak of left-libertarianism, but it was specifically named "left-libertarianism", whereas the libertarianism above was described as just "libertarianism". I have never seen is described in any left-wing terms except as "left-libertarianism".

Well I have made it a habit of exploring many different versians of libertarian and decentralist thoguht, so I certainly have come across it. The term was invented by anarcho-communists in I believe the 1840s and was used frequently by anarchists right up until today. The American kind did not use it until the 1960s. Check out anarchist history.

This book was written by George Woodcock in early 60s and uses the term Anarchism(as in old fashioned leftwing anarchism.) and libertarianism as synonyms.

Amazon.com: Anarchism: A history of libertarian...
I don't really mind different groups using the word but I don't like one group trying to exclusively claim it, I particularly don't want to be considered a Freiedmanite or Rothbardian in all respects when I use the term.

Originally Posted by :
You're claim that absentee ownership affects the liberties of others can be reversed to say that making absentee ownership illegal infringes upon the liberties of those that wish to be absentee owners.

It would quite simple to work out that the first is alot worse because the second equalises things while the first does not. The second means no one can have more land than they can personally use(by absentee ownership it is only immoavable property I'm interested in.) and therefore all should be able to have the land they can personally use. Whereas in the first system some might be free to have more land while others have less than they can personally use.

Originally Posted by :
I gave Nozick's one already, which you dismissed on the lines that there were many competing theories of property - which I completely accepted and made clear that I was arguing on utilitarian grounds.

You seem to be trying to shift the discussion onto something that we were not really talking about. Furthermore, just because there are many theories of property rights/ownership doesn't mean that this particular one is false or any less or more utilitarian than another.

You didn't explain Nozick's one, I'm not sure of its contents and you certainly did not prove its eternal utilitarian benefits. I still maintain no theory or kind of property is always the best.

Originally Posted by :
By rights in this sentence, do you mean natural or legal ones? Because as I said in my previous post, it is really irrelevant which (which Tito also made clear when he argued for utilitarian/legal rights as opposed to natural ones).

He didn't really make it clear, it said he didn't believe in natural rights but then made it clear there is only one kind of right system which is fine with justice and human nature, which is much the same thing. What I'm looking for is a decent argument on whatever grounds that one particularly system of property is always better and if it is utilitarian arguments you have I'd like to hear them.

Originally Posted by :
Then I might just as well ask, as you have done, what justifies this view over another?

Because it is grounded in what people really experience and not in abstract things like property rights. It is also based on a view of humanity that they ultimately enjoy freedom and autonomy and can achieve the most with it, something akin to humanist psychology.

Originally Posted by :
However, I have absolutely no disagreement with this, however, I think that can be achieved within a Lockean/Nozickian view of property

I want to know why this is always and eternally so.
[Rep]