Capitalist rebuttal to anarchism and socialism: propertarianism

[IcarusAngel]

How about an ideology based ONLY on the discussion of property rights? What will such an ideology be called? Propertarianism, perhaps:

"Mutualism is incompatible with non-agression [against property]:"

http://propertarianism.blogspot.com/2008/06/mutualism-is-incompatible-with-non_09.html (http://propertarianism.blogspot.com/2008/06/mutualism-is-incompatible-with-non_09.html)

"Geolibertarianism is theft":
http://propertarianism.blogspot.com/2008/06/geoanarchism-is-theft.html (http://propertarianism.blogspot.com/2008/06/geoanarchism-is-theft.html)


FINALLY, MARKET-ANARCHISTS ARE CALLED THEIR MOVEMENT WHAT IT REALLY IS, THE "PROPERTY MOVEMENT," i.e. PROPERTARIANISM. :laugh:

I might comment just to thank them for being honest with the name. :)

[JazzRemington]

I don't know about the 2nd article (I don't know much about geolibertarianism) but that 1st article just plain sucks and reads like some fanatical 8 year old throwing a fit because he read something that is in reality quite ambiguous and not trying to get clarification.

He seems to take that one little quote and claim that all Mutualists are violent, despite the fact that most of the major Mutualist writers have written that their society would come about thru issuance of credit from Mutual Banks and the building of alternative institutions. Hell, Benjamin Tucker said the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War were "a crazy bunch."

Basically, the article is nothing but a bunch of straw-man arguments that are tangled in an awful web of bullshit.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

FINALLY, MARKET-ANARCHISTS ARE CALLED THEIR MOVEMENT WHAT IT REALLY IS, THE "PROPERTY MOVEMENT," i.e. PROPERTARIANISM. :laugh:
"Movement?" They have a movement? I don't think so. What they have are a small number of deluded individuals, most of whom appear to be middle-class internet nerds. They have no strategy, no action; they have not a single organization - indeed, I'm not sure they do anything together except talk.

Market anarchists are even less effective than the old utopian socialists of the 19th century. At least the utopian socialists got together and tried to establish small village-sized communities according to their ideals. Market anarchists can't even do that.

[Peacekeeper]

At least the utopian socialists got together and tried to establish small village-sized communities according to their ideals. Market anarchists can't even do that.

Actually... they do. But with the market anarchists, it's institutionalized. The Free Zones, for example. There is one in my state :(

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The what? Please tell me more, I've never heard about these "Free Zones"...

[Peacekeeper]

The what? Please tell me more, I've never heard about these "Free Zones"...

Wiki pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_port
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_economic_zone
List of Free Zones in the USA: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist.html

I first heard about them from a movie we watched in AP World History, "Life & Debt."

It is basically an area exempt from the laws of the nation it is located in, therefore labor laws are nonexistent, and they are used as centers of exploitation.


A free port (porto franco) or free zone (US: Foreign-Trade Zone) is a port or area with relaxed jurisdiction with respect to the country of location. Free economic zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_economic_zone) may also be called free ports.
Most commonly a free port is a special customs area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_area) with favorable customs regulations (or no customs duties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_duties) and controls for transshipment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transshipment)). Earlier in history some free ports like Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong) enjoyed political autonomy. Many international airports have free ports, though they tend to be called customs areas, customs zones, or international zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_zones).


Many countries have, or have had at some time, designated areas where companies are taxed very lightly or not at all to encourage development or for some other reason. These are known as free economic zones.:blushing:

[JazzRemington]

Individualist Anarchists in the 1800s did so also. I believe either Josiah Warren and/or Lysander Spooner helped set up communities that lived under such principles. Josiah Warren had set up the Cincinnati Time Store, and from what I understand was quite successful in its time and several other communities (such as Modern Times and a reorganized Utopia, both of which were successful until external circumstances caused the experiments to come to an end).

[Baconator]

I wasn't impressed by the site. I'm not really into the rational egoism or Randian thing.
I believe Mutualism Anarchism is a type of individualist and market anarchism. Antiquated if you will. Many of the Mutualists accepted the classical economist interpretation of the labor theory of value as economics hasn't really solved the question of value during that time. Because of the socialist implications of the LTV , Mutualism necessarily incorporated socialist concepts within the market and individualist anarchist thought process. I think they just hold on to some old theories that they should let go. I think if they did let it go , they would be basically market anarchists.

The socialism aspect of mutualism does imply violence but as I said , I think they just hold on to an outdated theory about the economy.

[IcarusAngel]

The only thing that implies violence is your totalitarian, von Mises style of property rights where everybody is forced to accept the externalities and monopolition of resources by privatized capitalists, equivalent to 10 men starving on an island with only two of them declaring the property to be theirs because they threaten to machine gun anybody who disagrees. Except, of course, that scenario is even less extreme, because at least he isn't forcing them to accept externalities, and the "rulers" weren't established before they were born, like the way modern corporations have been around centuries.

Plus, you forecefully expect everybody to agree with absolutist property rights, even though most people don't even agree with it in the first place.

Mutualism is not the same as market-anarchism. Proudhon was a mutalist, and his descendents are probably syndicalists. Proudhon understood then when property gets out of hand, it is tyranny. All capitalism was statism to Proudhon.

Josiah Warren and Spooner also both condemned capitalism. Spooner, even more directly than Proudhon, and he despised wage slavery.

[IcarusAngel]

The socialism aspect of mutualism does imply violence but as I said , I think they just hold on to an outdated theory about the economy.


The only antiquated notions about the economy are your own. There are more Marxist economics' departments in the US than ones based on the refuted "von Mises" school of thought.

Name the Universities, outside of the proven liars and frauds, and racists, at George Mason U, where von Mises and his crap is taught as the standard.

The vast majority of economics rejects von Mises, and no sociologist or scientist accepts praxeology.