Castro has passed on

[Mycroft]

I will explain soon. May I observe out of interest that I am at present located within a few minutes' walk of the place where Allan Pinkerton was born in 1819.

Looking forward to it.

Also out of interest, a few years ago I read a historical novel about the Civil War written by William Saffire. Alan Pinkerton was portraid as something of a putz, but apparently was also instrumental in founding the US Secret Service.

I also know one of his descendants, who married a friend of mine.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Hlafordlaes did compare Libertarianism to feudalism. I personally disagree with that comparison, but I doubt he's advocating for either a feudalistic or libertarian society either. He seemed to be using the term "Feudalism" in a pejorative sense to describe a possible libertarian outcome.

That is correct. Not that libertarians have no saving graces, but by and large, it is the gaping hole where systems thinking normally goes that forms the basis for its strident individualism, and condemns it as a political philosophy.

There are enormous, humongous ceteris paribus conditions in play when imagining some league of reasonable libertarians using minimal institutions to order their affairs, claiming all else is undue imposition. Let's take the right to all fruits of one's innovations, free in principle of tax. The reality is, no innovation is anything without the myriad, sweeping, historical and contemporary physical, social and knowledge capital upon which any single achievement relies for its success. Abrogating sole benefit to oneself, without any debt to society, is like rushing to put a pebble atop a pyramid and calling it a monumental achievement. Further, any innovation can have ecological and social impacts, making it a liability that society must deal with. ("The thigh bone is connected to the shin bone, the shin bone to the ankle bone...")

And if you care for these things, human inputs are not and cannot be dealt with in the same terms as capital inputs, or you get the wanton slavery called "zero hour contracts." Then there are the inevitable and insurmountable differences in power, wealth, and asymmetrical need of the other among buyers and sellers (don't need your individual business, but you desperately need my water). Eventually, property rules freely without restraint: feudalism.

 

[caveman1917]

Castro was not a libertarian - even with the normal meaning of the word - but a liberal. His initial goal was to establish a bourgeois democracy which he hoped would be supported by the US. When this didn't work - American rhetoric on "democracy" is after all just that, rhetoric - he turned to the USSR for help and aligned himself with Marxism-Leninism.

 

[caveman1917]

Why on earth do you think Libertarians would be fine with that?

Every time someone brings up something said by people stated by wikipedia to be "central figures in libertarianism" you simply declare "that's a fringe position" but at no time do you make any effort to then expound on what you think libertarianism is.

Here's another question: suppose I buy a ring of land around a town, and then charge hefty fees for people who want to go into or out of town over my private property. Libertarian?

 

[Ziggurat]

Every time someone brings up something said by people stated by wikipedia to be "central figures in libertarianism" you simply declare "that's a fringe position"

Central figures in libertarianism advocated for South African apartheid laws?

 

[Craig B]

I disagree that the ability to hire people to defend your property rights is particularly relevant because it doesn’t necessarily lead to the kinds of abuses associated with the Mafia or feudalism. Are there any other comparisons? If so, what?

Most American libertarians think there should still be government, and its role would still be to enforce basic laws such as prohibitions on murder, theft, etc., it just wouldn't engage in all the social engineering it does now.

Two libertarian views contained in these statements, and they are both mistaken. Ownership is not some measurable aspect of things like colour or mass. It is a social convention based either on statute, or in more primitive societies, custom and tabu. Consider this.

... suppose I buy a ring of land around a town, and then charge hefty fees for people who want to go into or out of town over my private property. Libertarian?

Why is that wrong? I can charge people to come into my garden: it's my property, isn't it? I wouldn't be allowed to do what caveman1917 describes. Whyever not? It's my property, isn't it?

I own a shirt, a house, a farm. Can I destroy the shirt if I want? Yes. The house? No. The farm? No. Such things are rightly considered part of the physical structure underlying society, and interests or wishes other than solely those of the owner are rightly taken into account if they are to be disposed of.

So, "property rights" and "social engineering" are not absolutely distinct, but part of a spectrum. The choice is whether issues concerning them are dealt with - where the public interest needs to be considered - by a democratic representative government, or by a magnate acting only in his or her personal interest, and sustained not by the votes of the electorate, but by "Pinkerton" thugs.

 

[Mycroft]

Here's another question: suppose I buy a ring of land around a town, and then charge hefty fees for people who want to go into or out of town over my private property. Libertarian?

If you look at a map of an actual town and calculate the amount of land one would need to buy to do that, and calculated the cost of the land, I think you would come to the conclusion that nobody would do that.

If they tried, the likely result would be people who own land surrounding this town would decline to sell, or would jack up the price.

In most places properties come with access rights and easements to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and there is no reason why a libertarian society couldn't also incorporate these.

 

[caveman1917]

Central figures in libertarianism advocated for South African apartheid laws?

Feel free to edit the wikipedia page if you think it is incorrect:

Murray Newton Rothbard (/ˈmʌri ˈrɑːθbɑːrd/; March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School,[1][2] a revisionist historian,[3][4] and a political theorist[5](pp11, 286, 380) whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism.[6] Rothbard was the founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism, a staunch advocate of historical revisionism, and a central figure in the twentieth-century American libertarian movement.

Just saying "fringe position!" every time without then defending your own, presumably "non-fringe", position does not an argument make.

 

[caveman1917]

If you look at a map of an actual town and calculate the amount of land one would need to buy to do that, and calculated the cost of the land, I think you would come to the conclusion that nobody would do that.

If they tried, the likely result would be people who own land surrounding this town would decline to sell, or would jack up the price.

Half of the world's property is owned by 62 people, I'm sure they can manage buying a few rings of land. And think about it, most cities are net food importers - you can bleed those people inside your ring dry under threat of starvation.

In most places properties come with access rights and easements to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and there is no reason why a libertarian society couldn't also incorporate these.

What happened to the part where the state was to only protect capitalist property rights? But since you're probably going to respond to every such question with "we can just do what we're doing now about that", let me try another type of question: what would differentiate a libertarian society from the one we have now?

 

[Mycroft]

I own a shirt, a house, a farm. Can I destroy the shirt if I want? Yes. The house? No. The farm? No. Such things are rightly considered part of the physical structure underlying society, and interests or wishes other than solely those of the owner are rightly taken into account if they are to be disposed of.

Why can't you destroy the house? Houses get destroyed all the time when the owner decides he wants to do something else with the property.

Why can't you destroy the farm? I know of many housing developments that used to be farmland.

The point of libertarianism is that it's up to the property owner to make these decisions.

Yes, it's probably a good idea to balance the needs of the society with the rights of the individual. The more emphasis you place on individual rights, the more libertarian you would be.

 

[caveman1917]

So, "property rights" and "social engineering" are not absolutely distinct, but part of a spectrum.

Property is theft. Here Zig, that's the sort of stuff actual anarchists believe, should make it easy for you to distinguish between actual anarchists and crypto-fascists in a ridiculous transparent yellow-black disguise.

The choice is whether issues concerning them are dealt with - where the public interest needs to be considered - by a democratic representative government, or by a magnate acting only in his or her personal interest, and sustained not by the votes of the electorate, but by "Pinkerton" thugs.

Representative of what? The long-term interests of capital in general, as opposed to the whims of the individual capitalist?

 

[Craig B]

If you look at a map of an actual town and calculate the amount of land one would need to buy to do that, and calculated the cost of the land, I think you would come to the conclusion that nobody would do that.

If they tried, the likely result would be people who own land surrounding this town would decline to sell, or would jack up the price.

In most places properties come with access rights and easements to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and there is no reason why a libertarian society couldn't also incorporate these.

By what mechanism would it incorporate them, if not through a representative parliament advising municipalities on the limits of rights attaching to ownership of their land? And possessing both the desire and the ability to enforce such limits.

 

[Mycroft]

By what mechanism would it incorporate them, if not through a representative parliament advising municipalities on the limits of rights attaching to ownership of their land? And possessing both the desire and the ability to enforce such limits.

If there is a model for "pure libertarianism" that doesn't have these mechanisms in place, I don't know what it is. I would assume that a libertarian society would minimize these institutions, but not eliminate them entirely.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ah, the joy of the comparative (rule 10) game.
After 17 years, Pinochet stepped down. It wasn't one of his family members who took over.
Castro? El Presidente for about five decades. Even if you like the guy, there can be too much of a good thing. He has so far succeeded in making Cuba subjects to a family dynasty. Not sure how well Raul will do, or what changes he may make as the political landscape changes in the near future.
And change it will. There is not reason not to have continuation of improved relations between the US and Cuba. I am glad President Obama helped with the thaw that began over a decade ago. Other initiatives were already in progress, including a project that a family friend worked on back in 2003 ...
http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Port-Corpus-Christi-Cubas-ALIMPORT-Agreement

You all may find the article of interest.

Under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, U.S. companies are allowed to sell medicine, humanitarian and agricultural products to Cuba. Since its inception, nearly $480 million worth of goods have been purchased from U.S. companies. In 2003, more than $230 million worth of U.S. goods will be bought by Cuba.

The Port of Corpus Christi expects to ship additional wheat product destined for Cuba in the coming months. The Port continues to work hand in hand with ALIMPORT on shipments thru South Texas, in particular products indigenous to Texas such as cotton, grains, and meats.

 

[Mycroft]

Half of the world's property is owned by 62 people, I'm sure they can manage buying a few rings of land.

That article says half the worlds wealth is owned by 62 people.

Edited to add:

The article doesn't even say that. It claims the 62 wealthiest people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom half (in terms of wealth) of the world population. That means there is an awful lot of wealth owned by those people who are in the upper half, but not that top 62.



Land is generally not sold in rings. To make a ring around a city, you would need to buy tens of thousands of individual parcels to make that ring. Then what would you do about the publically owned roads in and out of town?

And think about it, most cities are net food importers - you can bleed those people inside your ring dry under threat of starvation.

Meh, screw 'em. Cities have concentrations of the bourgeois class anyway, right? They will fare better in this libertarian dystopia of yours where they would have to pay a lot more for their groceries than they would in your anarchist utopia, which would begin with their heads getting popped open with baseball bats and other blunt objects, right?

What happened to the part where the state was to only protect capitalist property rights?

How is protecting your access to your property not protecting your property rights?

But since you're probably going to respond to every such question with "we can just do what we're doing now about that"...

Yeah, let's talk about that for a second.

The willingness fix the flaw in a political system by adjusting the rules that govern it even when those adjustments do not strictly adhere to your political philosophy is called moderation.

That's a good thing. A very good thing.

It's opposite is fanaticism. That's a bad thing. Very bad.

It's not religious dogma. There are no brownie points awarded in the afterlife for how closely you followed the tenets of your political philosophy. If you feel you're not allowed to fix problems (such as human suffering) by making adjustments that are outside of the scope of your chosen philosophy, then you are the problem and a potential catalyst for creating more human suffering.

 

[Craig B]

Ah, the joy of the comparative (rule 10) game.

After 17 years, Pinochet stepped down. It wasn't one of his family members who took over.

Castro? El Presidente for about five decades. Even if you like the guy, there can be too much of a good thing. He has so far succeeded in making Cuba subjects to a family dynasty.

If that is a criticism of the Castro regime, it is a valid one, albeit that Raul was himself prominent in the movement prior to Fidel's victory against Batista, so he was important from the start. But it says nothing much in favour of Pinochet that he was different. Stalin wasn't succeeded by his son. That hardly absolves him from his many atrocious deeds.

I turn to consider the deficiencies of these régimes, which don't usually end as dynasties, but never produce democracies. There is a symmetry between this "Communism" and the "Libertarianism", hereafter C and L, we have been discussing. (Scare quotes because both terms are misnomers.) Both neglect the importance of establishing and securing appropriate constitutional settlements, which was a major concern of the English, American and French revolutions, as well as of such movements as Irish independence.

C emanated from an ideology that identified private property as a source of exploitation of people by other people. So it is. C drew the conclusion that the abolition of property would therefore eliminate exploitation, which does not follow at all.

L identifies government as a source of oppression. So it is. It therefore seeks to eliminate or weaken government. But this doesn't weaken oppression, which simply moves to other foci. It weakens democratic oversight. It makes government more definitively the tool of the vested interests that survive the weakening of parliamentary bodies. Police forces are a source of oppression. Take them away and society won't be free of oppression; it'll be ruled by psychopaths and other gangsters.

Feudalism is the "collapse ecology" of politics. When Rome collapsed following barbarian invasions, feudalism is the mechanism by which more primitive successor polities eked out a wretched existence among the ruins. Centuries elapsed before humanity escaped from this order of things. Need we return to it now?

The American Revolution was among the first (as late as that!) political developments that, for all its other defects, rejected the remnants of feudalism - the social categories of Church, Crown and nobility still then so prominent in Britain, and instead introduced an order in which, as Robert Burns said

Poor dunghill sons of dirt and mire
May to Patrician rights aspire​

(Which is not at all the same thing as establishing equality or eliminating oppression, be it noted). Is this gain to be squandered, because the US political machine and part of its electorate have succumbed to disgraceful panic during an economic crisis, like able bodied passengers throwing the old and the weak out of lifeboats to save themselves at others' expense in a shipwreck? Heaven forbid.

 

[Craig B]

Land is generally not sold in rings. To make a ring around a city, you would need to buy tens of thousands of individual parcels to make that ring. Then what would you do about the publically owned roads in and out of town?

In a "libertarian" society what is there to defend the public ownership of roads?

Meh, screw 'em. Cities have concentrations of the bourgeois class anyway, right? They will fare better in this libertarian dystopia of yours where they would have to pay a lot more for their groceries than they would in your anarchist utopia, which would begin with their heads getting popped open with baseball bats and other blunt objects, right?

That is not a valid answer to a valid point. It is not even an attempt to show why the point is not valid. It is pure rhetorical misdirection.

 

[Mycroft]

In a "libertarian" society what is there to defend the public ownership of roads?

The vast majority of roads are public property now. If your society were to transition to a libertarian society, what mechanism would make that change?

That is not a valid answer to a valid point. It is not even an attempt to show why the point is not valid. It is pure rhetorical misdirection.

The point had been answered previously. It wouldn't happen because it's too hard to accomplish. Someone who tried to do it would find the costs rising dramatically as he worked on completing that ring because unless that ring is complete the scheme doesn't work. People who own that property he wants to buy would either sell at an exorbitant price, or not sell at all keeping the option open to them to make their own corridor getting all the benefits at only a tiny fraction of the cost.

That part has been said before. This part hasn't:

People have the option of being dicks in every political system. Making up hypotheticals about it doesn't undermine the system, it only presents a challenge to be solved or, in this case, one that doesn't because it won't happen.

At the same time, if you're going to make an argument from negative consequences, then a comparison to the negative consequences of an alternative system is appropriate. My opinion is that someone charging you a toll on all your supplies is milder by far than the bloodletting and skull-cracking that is often encountered by the people who don't want to go along with the Anarchist revolution. That non-aggressive principle of theirs? They don't mean it.

 

[Craig B]

[Representative government is] Representative of what? The long-term interests of capital in general, as opposed to the whims of the individual capitalist?

I see you don't set much store by the struggle for suffrage that occupied the minds and exertions of former generations. You could not be more wrong than you are in your evident dismissal of these.

By dispersing the Russian Constituent Assembly^WP, for example, the Bolsheviks unwittingly destroyed the Russian Revolution. They were among the parties who had earlier demanded its speedy convocation in opposition to the procrastination of the Provisional Government. But when the elections produced a result adverse to their party they saw no mortal danger in dissolving the assembly. But such danger there was, even to their own persons.

Absent a secure constitution, the state became the victim of the first psychopath warlord who was able to place himself at the top of the bureaucratic hierarchy, unregulated by elected representatives, which had overwhelmed the political and economic order. What then followed, we know.

 

[Craig B]

At the same time, if you're going to make an argument from negative consequences, then a comparison to the negative consequences of an alternative system is appropriate. My opinion is that someone charging you a toll on all your supplies is milder by far than the bloodletting and skull-cracking that is often encountered by the people who don't want to go along with the Anarchist revolution. That non-aggressive principle of theirs? They don't mean it.

I am proposing, in detail and with explanations, the establishment of representative constitutional parliaments, not summoning hordes of club wielding anarchists.

You are merely attending to your own sloganising prejudices and not to the words others have taken the trouble to set down before your eyes. ETA eg

Both [Communism and Libertarianism] neglect the importance of establishing and securing appropriate constitutional settlements, which was a major concern of the English, American and French revolutions, as well as of such movements as Irish independence.​

so I will address you no further in this matter, as I have not had the least success in attracting your attention