@wjmaggos
I don't understand the first sentence in the second paragraph.

I think his characterization of Murray Rothbards views as hateful and uncooperative is very incorrect. For example, Rothbard would have no problem with individuals forming a Co-op to build and maintain a road to be offered to the public for a fee or for free. How is that hateful? Murray's beef with public roads as they exist now is that they are funded through gov't force which violate what he would call "libertarianism"

@HiroProtagonist I posted it cause I'd heard him describe himself as a socialist libertarian before (and that's kinda how I feel) and after hearing people like Dave Smith praise Rothbard and seeing Chomsky mention him, this made sense to me.

So what I think he's getting at is these questions of what life would really be like in an extremely anti-authoritarian society. He's supposing the libertarian vision is very privatised vs a socialist vision with a large commons, I think.

@wjmaggos One of the things that you have to keep in mind about Rothbard was that he was an economist, a libertarian (of the "the Non Aggression Principle is the cornerstone of libertarianism" variety), and politically involved (he would support candidates not because they were in sync with his ideas but because they were the "better" candidate - usually on the issue of war & peace). 1/2

@wjmaggos Taking Rothbard in total, you can easily say that he would have no problem (as a libertarian) with people forming socialist collectives so long as no one was forced to do so (voluntary). 2/3

@wjmaggos He would also have a problem (as an economist) with people forming socialist collectives, believing that to be an inferior (he would have stronger terms) form of economy (he might even say it's a non-economic system). However, he would still not advocate are engage in the use of force to impose his economic views on them. 3/3

Sorry about the numbering :)

@HiroProtagonist the NAP is a beautiful thing. the question is in implementation.

if I understand correctly, a property owner's rules for his land will be the only government. but the problems don't go away. territorial disputes, inheritance, pollution, internal NAP violations etc.

I agree on the problems of socialist collectives. markets are very useful. but I think we will always come back to needing some kind of democracy to solve disputes and share/manage some resources.

@wjmaggos
"Go back to democracy" == "go back to using violence to get things you want"
@HiroProtagonist

@bigl0af @HiroProtagonist I don't understand your alternative. negotiation is what you do first to avoid violence. what happens in the NAP world when one guy won't bargain?

@bigl0af @HiroProtagonist when that works, awesome of course. but you know it often won't. please don't claim I'm the one supporting violence when you don't have a good answer to this either.

@bigl0af @HiroProtagonist out of 1000 people, there might only be only one completely unreasonable jerk. but I don't know how else to deal with him without democracy and maybe eventually violence. and I like living in a town of 50,000. those 50 bastards could really fuck shit up even non-violently if they get organized etc.

@wjmaggos Yeah, there are a myriad of problems in any system that involves human beings. I'm an advocate of liberty for all, but I'm not blind to the very real problems of moving toward and maintaining that liberty. It's a worthwhile struggle, though. Social cooperation is so much better than political collusion.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
The Mastodon instance for Culture War Radio

social.culturewar.us is one server in the network