I found out how to overcome the biggest obstacle to an alliance between libertarianism and progressivism: libertarians passionately believe that property rights increase freedom, but in fact that effectively do the opposite. see my thread here for an argument (where I have largely unsuccessfully) attempting to convince the Google+ libertarian crowd that property rights go against freedom.
https://plus.google.com/+TimothyMatias/posts/GEyRtHpJr6W
It just occurred me though, if libertarians realized that property rights limit freedom, they would be much more likely to join progressives, who's weakening of property rights for individuals (physical, monetary, intellectual, etc.) has proven to be the biggest obstacle between the two groups.
It's my mission to make the impossible possible. I understand libertarians very well. I also understand progressives well. I know how much libertarians value property, and that's why I'm making it my priority to show libertarians how they've misunderstood the function of property, in relation to "freedom" and "responsibility".
This means convincing Libertarians that the will of society is a just a projection of the wills of individuals, and convincing Progressives that the wills of individuals reflect the will of society.
See, that wasn't so hard. "Different ways of looking at the same thing"
If I can find a way to make that "click", we'll be one step closer to a fusion of values.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Relationship Between Property Rights and Freedom
As
much as I support private property rights as a necessary right in
modern-day societies, it isn't something that can be justifiably
promoted in the name of "liberty". Private property isn't a part of
freedom, nor is it necessarily compatible with freedom. Owning property
limits who can use it, how people can use it, etc., and puts conditions
on its use. By definition, private property is a barrier to freedom, as it restricts the use property to the conditions imposed on it by the legal owners.
This isn't to say that private property can't be a vehicle of *partial* freedom. Sometimes it's necessary to restrict some freedoms (such as the free use of property, via private property) to ensure other freedoms (such as the individual guarantee of freedom to do what they like with their property, and protection against those who would infringe on that freedom).
In an ideal, truly free society, private property would not be necessary, as the people would freely share all their land. resources, ideas, commodities, etc. with each other, and everyone would be more prosperous, free, and innovative as a result. Private property cannot be part of any *truly* free society, as (for reasons I documented above) it is a barrier to the free use by non-owners. Just keep that in mind: Private property is necessary for a conditional freedom that emphasizes the rights of individuals, but is not by any means compatible with unconditional freedom.
This isn't to say that private property can't be a vehicle of *partial* freedom. Sometimes it's necessary to restrict some freedoms (such as the free use of property, via private property) to ensure other freedoms (such as the individual guarantee of freedom to do what they like with their property, and protection against those who would infringe on that freedom).
In an ideal, truly free society, private property would not be necessary, as the people would freely share all their land. resources, ideas, commodities, etc. with each other, and everyone would be more prosperous, free, and innovative as a result. Private property cannot be part of any *truly* free society, as (for reasons I documented above) it is a barrier to the free use by non-owners. Just keep that in mind: Private property is necessary for a conditional freedom that emphasizes the rights of individuals, but is not by any means compatible with unconditional freedom.
Free Market Vs. Capitalism: Clearing up Some Confusion
It seems there's a lot of confusion about the relationship between the "free market" and "capitalism", so I'd like to clear things up:
technically the "free market" is a form of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is rather broad:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
According to this definition, most economic systems that are not state-controlled are capitalistic.
The free market, in its most pure and idealistic form, is what we refer to today as "the black market", or alternatively, "the underground economy". This is the most decentralized form of capitalism.
Corporatism is most centralized form of capitalism. It is essentially the same thing as socialism, only the states are substituted for corporations, government agencies for subsidiaries, bureaucrats for CEOs, and voters for shareholders.
In an ideal, free society, the free market would be the de facto form of capitalism, but such free trade has been so suppressed that it can only thrive underground. And incidentally, it has thrived greatly, at least on a global level, despite (or rather, because of) government oppression and intervention in the economy).
So when I say capitalism is completely different from the free market, this is what I mean: The capitalism in place today, around the world, is completely different from free market capitalism- it is in fact its polar opposite. And additionally, the polar opposite of Socialism is Anarchism, which goes to show that the advantages of capitalism may not be advantages at all. What brings us prosperity isn't capitalism, it's freedom!
technically the "free market" is a form of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is rather broad:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
According to this definition, most economic systems that are not state-controlled are capitalistic.
The free market, in its most pure and idealistic form, is what we refer to today as "the black market", or alternatively, "the underground economy". This is the most decentralized form of capitalism.
Corporatism is most centralized form of capitalism. It is essentially the same thing as socialism, only the states are substituted for corporations, government agencies for subsidiaries, bureaucrats for CEOs, and voters for shareholders.
In an ideal, free society, the free market would be the de facto form of capitalism, but such free trade has been so suppressed that it can only thrive underground. And incidentally, it has thrived greatly, at least on a global level, despite (or rather, because of) government oppression and intervention in the economy).
So when I say capitalism is completely different from the free market, this is what I mean: The capitalism in place today, around the world, is completely different from free market capitalism- it is in fact its polar opposite. And additionally, the polar opposite of Socialism is Anarchism, which goes to show that the advantages of capitalism may not be advantages at all. What brings us prosperity isn't capitalism, it's freedom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)