Cross post: Petition to form an indepentent Objectivist State

[Vitalik Buterin]

non-authoritarian stream of socialism.

Any form of socialism requires coercion for its implementation. Whether this coercion goes hand in hand with authoritarianism does not really matter. It is wrong regardless.

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[1714806094]

1714806094

[1714806094]

1714806094

[freespirit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I'm aware of such "ideas". In my opinion they are something like oxymorons.
Because the moment some of the members of such "libertarian socialist" society choose to disagree with that society's views on private property, one of the two things will happen: either this society will cease to exist (cease to be classified as "libertatian socialist") or it will resort to coercion to enforce its "societal principles".
Also, try thinking about it this way: imagine you were born in such society but you disagree with its views. Let's say you want to own more kinds of private property than its principles allow. What are your options? Will you be allowed to do so? If not, can you really call this society libertarian? If yes, can you call it socialist anymore?

[herzmeister]

yup, but that goes similarly for an anarcho-"capitalist" society, you can't expect anyone to accept and respect your concept of private property. That's why I say there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism, there is only anarchism.

Maybe like-minded people with similar views would form communities, but probably these communities will be fighting for resources sooner or later.   

[myrkul]

yup, but that goes similarly for an anarcho-"capitalist" society, you can't expect anyone to accept and respect your concept of private property.

..except you can. It's not coercion to defend yourself, or your stuff. It is coercion to try and remove someone's stuff by force.

Put differently: My having a house does not make you worse off. You taking my house does make me worse off.

[herzmeister]

I don't necessarily share this view but:

Property is theft!

Look I won't argue with you, but the very fact alone that many folks do view things differently from you is hint enough that you can't implement your AnCap as straightforwardly as you'd like to believe, i.e. without force.

[myrkul]

I don't necessarily share this view but:

Property is theft!

Look I won't argue with you, but the very fact alone that many folks do view things differently from you is hint enough that you can't implement your AnCap as straightforwardly as you'd like to believe, i.e. without force.

I've read that piece of drivel, and well, I think I've made my opinion of it sufficiently clear.

If someone considers Property to be theft, and tries to take my stuff, there will be force used. Defensive force. However, note that the use of that force does not change the nature of the society.

Let's take two societies as examples. One is non-propertarian anarchism, the other is AnCap.

In the non-propertarian society, everyone believes that nothing is owned personally, everything is the property of the community, and all is well. But one person decides to keep his TV for a while, or his car, or what have you. At this point, the rest of the population enforces its will upon him and takes back the stuff. The non-propertarian society has violated its anarchic principles to maintain its non-propertarian principles.

In the AnCap society, everyone believes that their stuff is theirs, and your stuff is yours, and nobody tries to steal, and all is well. But one person decides that property is theft, and divests himself of all property. All is still well, and as long as Mr. non-propertarian doesn't decide to use someone else's stuff without their permission, it remains so. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he doesn't. He decides that he will use someone's stuff, since they're not using it right now. Well, this person is understandably not pleased, especially since he had to come into their house to get that stuff. The AnCap, in defense of his property, shoots and kills the non-propertarian. The AnCap society did not have to relinquish its anarchic principles to maintain its capitalistic principles, nor its capitalistic principles to maintain its anarchic principles.

[herzmeister]

Again, don't tell me, tell them.

My message is not to tell you you're right or you're wrong, my message is that people think different, feel different, are different, and you can't force your individual perspective on everyone.

[myrkul]

Again, don't tell me, tell them.

My message is not to tell you you're right or you're wrong, my message is that people think different, feel different, are different, and you can't force your individual perspective on everyone.

If my individual perspective is leave me the hell alone, I sure can.

[justusranvier]

you can't force your individual perspective on everyone.

Can a woman force her individual perspective of not wanting to have sex with a particular man (or all man for that matter) on him?

[herzmeister]

They distinguish between different kinds of property:

This was because Proudhon distinguished between what he considered to be two distinct forms of property often bound up in the single label. To the mutualist, this is the distinction between property created by coercion and property created by labor. Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation — but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property.

(In reality the transition is probably smoother though).

Thus, no one will rob you off your toothbrush, your flat screen TV, your house, your garden. But if you claim a whole continent as your own, you'll probably run into disagreements.

[myrkul]

They distinguish between different kinds of property...

I've talked to a proudhounite... They don't even acknowledge self-ownership. You don't own you. No, thank you.

[Vitalik Buterin]

They distinguish between different kinds of property...

I've talked to a proudhounite... They don't even acknowledge self-ownership. You don't own you. No, thank you.

One proudhonite. When libertarians disagree on the right to sell yourself into slavery, conservatives disagree on the military and the importance and implementation of family values, anarchists disagree on whether the anarchy should be capitalist or socialist, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to define an ideology by what one adherent of it happens to support?

[myrkul]

They distinguish between different kinds of property...

I've talked to a proudhounite... They don't even acknowledge self-ownership. You don't own you. No, thank you.

One proudhonite. When libertarians disagree on the right to sell yourself into slavery, conservatives disagree on the military and the importance and implementation of family values, anarchists disagree on whether the anarchy should be capitalist or socialist, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to define an ideology by what one adherent of it happens to support?

Good point. I retract my previous statement.

[punningclan]

How do the Amish manage it?

[freespirit]

In regards to the "free city" in Georgia mentioned in my earlier post ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83107.msg924595#msg924595 ) it seems that they are even considering implementing English law system (case law/common law like in England, USA etc.) despite the fact that Georgia has codified civil law system.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24895

English Law System Mulled for Planned New City Lazika
16 Jun.'12

The Georgian authorities are considering having English law system as a dominant jurisdiction for commercial transactions in yet to be built new city Lazika on the Black Sea coast, instead of a codified civil law, which Georgia’s legal system is based on.

“British law will be introduced in Lazika for commercial transactions,” President Saakashvili on June 15.

He said it was “a huge experiment”, which aimed at “having an absolute safety and guarantee of commercial transactions for local and foreign investors.” He did not elaborate further into details.

According to a senior ruling party lawmaker Akaki Minashvili having a case law system in the planned new city was an idea and no relevant bill was yet elaborated.

Parliament passed with its first reading on June 12 a constitutional amendment according to which lawmakers will have to adopt an organic law to define special status of planned new city. The planned organic law is expected to define yet to be built city’s type of a semi-autonomous jurisdiction in details.

BTW, the constitutional amendment mentioned above has already passed so they seem to move fast!
http://en.trend.az/news/society/2042068.html

Georgia, Tbilisi, June 29 / Trend N.Kirtskhalia /
The Georgian Parliament passed with its third and final reading on June 29 constitutional amendment according to which lawmakers will have to adopt an organic law to define special status of planned new city, Lazika, on Georgia's Black Sea coast.
The organic law has yet to be drafted.
During the discussion of the initiative the government did not specify what status can be granted to this city, saying only that it will be a city with a high-power government, which will apply different legal rules.
President Saakashvili, who first announced about the idea to build the country's "second largest city" between Anaklia, close to breakaway Abkhazia, and Kulevi in the north from port town of Poti in December, said on June 15, that English law system would be introduced in Lazika for commercial transactions, instead of a codified civil law, which Georgia's legal system is based on.

And some latest news:
http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/13/new-city-new-vision-for-georgia/ (there is also a video at that page)

Tbilisi, Georgia (CNN) - In marshland off Georgia's Black Sea coast, Georgia’s president plans to build a brand new city – which he wants to call Lazika.

The promotional spiel promises dazzling skyscrapers and a special economic environment to make this the ideal spot, according to the Georgian government, to live and do business. Plus it will house another port - along a coastline teaming with ports - to support Georgia's role as a major hub for international trade.

Georgia owes much of its growth - which was nearly 7% last year - to its strategic location, straddling East and West. As well as being an important transit point for Chinese goods, Georgia is also home to Chinese companies investing directly in various sectors of the economy, from manufacturing to tourism to energy.


In a clearing high in Georgia's Caucasus Mountains, Chinese energy giant Sinohydro has plans to build a $630 million hydro-electric facility.

“This is a very good place for a hydro-electric station and that's why we've decided to invest here,” engineer Yao Jiansong told CNN’s Diana Magnay.

“Sinohydro is famous for building dams all around the world - this is nothing new for us,” he added.

Georgia wants to build 15 new hydroelectric power plants and is courting foreign investors to invest in the sector and double its capacity by 2015.

“Hydro is one of the things that's a big success story recently,” Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told CNN.

“It has been a big success story recently because if you look back at Georgian history this was just another post-Soviet country badly run and without energy resources. A whole generation grew up without having electricity most of the time in winter time.

“So suddenly we discovered that with corruption gone, existing resources could be used more rationally so we already could run enough electricity to make the economy grow.”

Saakashvili's term has seen a marked improvement in his country’s business climate. Georgia ranks 16th out of 183 on the World Bank's "Ease of Doing Business" survey.

In a boon to the country's image, Donald Trump has committed to investing in a new Trump Tower at the coastal resort of Batumi.

“I've always liked the region,” said Trump. “I just feel the people are very, very industrious, they're very hardworking, they're very smart, they're really good people.”

But there is still business risk. Relations with Russia have been effectively frozen since the 2008 conflict with Georgia; the borders between Georgia and the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still volatile.

Nor is the economy entirely stable. Beyond the glitz of the newly built skyscrapers there is still considerable poverty. Unemployment stands at 16%.

Projects like Lazika say a great deal about how Georgia wishes to present itself, but it's still far from clear where the money to build it will come from and who might eventually live there.

[ribuck]

How do the Amish manage it?

The Amish manage it because they have legal privileges that are not available to modern communities.

For example, the Amish are exempt from paying social security (according to the 1965 Medicare bill), along with any other sect that consciensciously objects and was in existence on December 31, 1950.

[Vandroiy]

I doubt it works as pure anarchy. That said, people have to agree on some sort of rules, as in when a contract is valid and what a crime is, or else it's the Neanderthal re-enacted.

People who agree -- I think that's the root of the problem. Look at this, we're all a similar bunch of geeks using a crypto-currency 99% of the world ignores, and still we can hardly agree on anything.

[grantbdev]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I'm aware of such "ideas". In my opinion they are something like oxymorons.
Because the moment some of the members of such "libertarian socialist" society choose to disagree with that society's views on private property, one of the two things will happen: either this society will cease to exist (cease to be classified as "libertatian socialist") or it will resort to coercion to enforce its "societal principles".
Also, try thinking about it this way: imagine you were born in such society but you disagree with its views. Let's say you want to own more kinds of private property than its principles allow. What are your options? Will you be allowed to do so? If not, can you really call this society libertarian? If yes, can you call it socialist anymore?

It's only an oxymoron under the commonly implied definitons (at least in America) of socialism, not the traditional (and much much more broad) definition of social ownership of means of production. People incorrectly assume that (the idea of) socialism necessitates exact equality of outcomes and sharing products. Not so. Socialism isn't about sharing your TV, it's about sharing the factory/workplace.

I personally consider libertarian socialism to be much more 'libertarian' because it considers other forms of authority and hierarchry beyond government. A society that is freed from not only government/taxpayer relations but also boss/employee relations is much more free and equal, right?

The problems you suggest are not any more unique to libertarian socialism than any other form of voluntary society. Coercion can hypothetically go both ways. It is also why I consider socialism much more an issue of culture and education rather than politics.

As for the OP, play Bioshock

[freespirit]

Socialism isn't about sharing your TV, it's about sharing the factory/workplace.

TV or factory - this is not so important. What's more important is whether this sharing is optional, whether it is a choice of every individual. Any form of socialism (including that "libertarian" socialism) implies that it is not.

I personally consider libertarian socialism to be much more 'libertarian' because it considers other forms of authority and hierarchry beyond government. A society that is freed from not only government/taxpayer relations but also boss/employee relations is much more free and equal, right?

How creation of more "authority/hierarchy" (more "government"), i.e. enforcement/coercive institutions can create more freedom??? What are you smoking?

[myrkul]

I personally consider libertarian socialism to be much more 'libertarian' because it considers other forms of authority and hierarchry beyond government. A society that is freed from not only government/taxpayer relations but also boss/employee relations is much more free and equal, right?

Tell me how you propose to prevent people from hiring others to do work for them, or from contracting their services to another in return for wages without using authoritarian means, and I might accept you as a fellow anarchist, rather than just a socialist in different colors.