I brought up this theory in political crossfire.com a few weeks ago, but the site has been down. Basically,
Libertarianism without property law. So, the state wouldn't confiscate your property, but in the same time, noone's property would be exclusively theirs. So, if you kill someone, you'll get in trouble, but there wouldn't be any property law as far as the government is concerned. Just a weird theory that I've coined as "Marxist-Libertarianism"
Don't get me wrong. I love Libertarianism, it's just something I thought about, do you think it's flawed? Unworkable?
It didn't work for the Spanish anarchists during their civil war.
They tried it? I thought I made up something new :P I'll look it up. There would still be a minarchy though.
they didn't get a chance to implement it lol and I don't think they were fighting for this. but ok
Joseph- I bet we could talk about this stuff for days. Maybe after the election.
Originally Posted by JosephTheLibertarian
So, you and the wife go to the store for a couple of hours one day and when you return, you find another family has taken up residence in your house and they're making themselves to home. This is my house you cry! It was abandoned when we got here they respond. But this is my house you yell, we only left to go to the store! Sorry but possession is 100% the rule and seeing has how we possess this property I can hardly see where you get the notion it's yours, now go away and stop bothering us.
The trouble with property-less anarchy (anarcho-socialism), is that property will arise spontaneously. Without a state to forbid it by force, you cannot prevent it.
On the other hand, propertarian anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) has no problem at all with groups that wish to set up property-less communes and syndicates.
I'm a bit shocked by this thread (and I'm not easily shocked)! I can't imagine anyone with generally libertarian views thinking there should be no property ownership. It is most definitely communism and is the antithesis of libertarianism and freedom.
Originally Posted by mdh
That's an oxymoron. The two cannot co-exist.
I don't think he was really saying there should be no property ownership, the question seems to be more of a product of a mind engaged in deep thought of various issues, I applaud this since if you don't explore the possibilities you end up just repeating what other people have told you. Not that I'm disagreeing with your oxymoron analysis.
Originally Posted by Anne