Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 7

Archives:

• Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive3
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4

Property sentence

There seems to be a dispute over the last sentence here: "Libertarians do not consider the kind of authority that property provides the owner to be dangerous, as some anarchists do. To libertarians, such power is diffuse and fleeting, and ultimately subject to the constraints of the marketplace. Libertarians see this decentralized authority as less dangerous than any centralized, monopoly authority that uses force." Radicalsub says: the sentence implies that (anti-capitalist) anarchists do believe in "any centralized, monopoly authority that uses force", when in fact they don't. However, that's not what the sentence means. It is answering the charge that property constitutes a state or a major danger. To see it as a criticism of anarcho-socialists is a misreading. - Nat Krause 10:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that two reasonably experienced editors read it that way indicates that it probably needs to be rewritten or relocated. RadicalSubversiv E 16:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone likes this version:

Libertarians do not consider the kind of authority that property provides the owner to be dangerous, as some anarchists do. To libertarians, such power is diffuse and fleeting, and ultimately subject to the constraints of the marketplace. Many anarchists, however, see it as part of the same hierarchy as the centralized, coercive monopoly of modern states that both groups oppose.

(I edited it, posted it here, and re-edited it. This is the most current version.) Dave (talk) 17:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your version is very good. What was then appended to it was not, and I removed it given that it imports several hidden assumptions and relies on what appears to be a straw-man anyway. I need to emphasize here that there is nothing wrong with giving these arguments as explication of libertarianism, that is both appropriate and necessary in this article. What is inappropriate is to assign to anarchists arguments that they may or may not even hold, like for example that active redistribution of land would be necessary once the state enforced property system of today is abolished, or that a system of property enforcement can be legitimately refered to as "voluntary" or that any anarchist would seek to "prevent people" from voluntary relations in the first place.

Here is the passage: "Some libertarians contend that if there were ever to be egalitarian "redistribution" of land and capital (either forced or voluntary), that individuals would voluntarily choose to trade and an unequal distribution of resources would again result in time, and, that the only ways to prevent people from engaging in trade are through persuasion or coercion. As libertarians believe that trade tends to be mutually beneficial, attempts to persuade individuals against trading when they insist there is benefit in it would be futile. This would leave anarchists or socialists with nothing but the hope that others would see merit in arguments that extoll the benefits of refraining from trade and rejecting private ownership of property." Kev 01:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest version

The latest version of the above passage now contradicts itself. A move has been made to include socialists in general into the passage, and that was proceeded with the reinsertion of the appended portion above which did not apply to anarchists but does to socialists. But now the passage reads that socialists in general oppose centralized monopolies, which is plainly false in the case of state socialists, and the appended portion which is now properly replying to the state socialist position is -still- presenting an anarchist position that does not exist. I'm trying to correct this, but it would be helpful if editors like RJ would discuss this rather than simply reinserting inappropriate edits. Kev 04:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should add that making this section NPOV now makes it far too long and too much of a tangent. The subject is supposed to be libertarianism, and in this section it should not be diverted into long libertarian exposition on other ideologies. I would prefer the whole part to be removed and restored to the version Dave made, but if RJ insists on adding these libertarian "responses" then the state socialist and anarchist positions simply can't remain conflated as they are. Kev 05:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to see it removed. But it's an important part of libertarian/capitalist philosophy. I'll take out the reference to anarchism if it bothers you. RJII 05:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't fix the problem. The referance to anarchism was there because it further informed on the libertarian position to indicate that it does not consider property to be coercive in nature. But if this section is going to be used as nothing more than a soap box for deriding other ideologies, it needs to at least get its facts straight, and the fact is that state socialism is the only thing libertarianism is being compared to in your edits while it is not the only thing open to comparison. Kev 05:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's relevant to socialism -state or stateless. RJII 05:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The responses you have inserted are relevant -only- to those forms of socialism that believe that a "redistribution" of wealth is necessary. Many anarchists, who are themselves socialists, do not believe that redistribution is necessary when the current active enforcement of capital ends. That you want to suppress this view and conflate these different positions speaks volumes to your bias. Kev 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redistribution of wealth

"Libertarians would accept, for the most part, the problematic nature of the existing arrangement of wealth, but only allow future transfers of wealth to occur through what they consider voluntary means."

This statement is proceeded by the claim that libertarians do not support a redistribution of wealth. Either that statement needs to be qualified, or the qualification in this statement needs to be removed, because at the moment they contradict. Kev 17:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the sentence a little closer. It says "for the most part." Looks like a "qualification" to me. RJII 18:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh... yeah... that is the point. This is going to be very hard to get through to you, isn't it? Okay, why don't you reread what I wrote and try one more time before I have to explain it to you, because this is just too funny atm.

No, nvm, I have no hope that you will figure this out. Okay, check it out. In the above statement the qualification "for the most part" indicates that libertarians -would not- accept the entire nature of existing wealth. In other words, that they -would- support some form of limited redistribution. If this is true, then the passage that comes before this one needs to be changed make it clear that they do in fact support redistribution, just not egalitarian redistribution. If it is not true, as I already said, the qualifier needs to be removed. Kev 18:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. You should have said so in the first place. Most would not support any "redistribution" whatsoever, unless someone is holding stolen property. I can modify it. RJII 18:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great. Mind you, I did say so in the first place, quite explicitly, but I'm very happy that communication eventually took place anyway. Kev 18:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't. RJII