Re: platform for coalition of left- and right-libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll pass.

But then again, I'm not sure I'm either a right or left libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you pass if given the choice between this system and the current system?

Re: platform for coalition of left- and right-libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
*Syndicalist seizure of large enterprises (the Fortune 500 might be a useful proxy) by radical industrial unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
*The devolution of government services, as quickly as possible,

[/ QUOTE ]

OK.

[ QUOTE ]
to local, cooperative ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks. I mean, if that happens, that's fine. But I oppose such a pre-determined, limited outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
*The elimination of all corporate welfare and government subsidies,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good.

[ QUOTE ]
and the provision of roads and utilities on a cost-basis to those who use them (which would of course mean a radical decentralization of the economy, an end to suburban sprawl, and the growth of small-scale production for local markets).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, why the need to micromanage the outcome? It looks decentralized, but in reality, it's just a different type of central planning. A whole range of voluntary ouctomes are pre-emptively excluded. No thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
*The nullification of all property titles based on government grants of large tracts of land, never actually appropriated by the grantee's direct occupancy and use; and the homesteading of all such unowned land on the basis of "the land to the tiller."

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. This excludes the possibility of a legitimate owner who the government took the land from coming forward to renew his claim, among other exclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
*The elimination of all legal barriers to the formation of mutual banks, by which working people can mobilize their own low-interest credit for cooperative enterprises, self-employment, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a strange specification. Don't you get this "for free" with the elimination of legal barriers in general?

[ QUOTE ]
*The elimination of all patent laws,

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine.

[ QUOTE ]
which enable large corporations to cartelize their industries by controlling modern production technology among themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point of including this? Patents are held by small firms, too. Oh, mentioning that would ruin the anti-big-business vibe going here.

[ QUOTE ]
*The treatment of scarce resources like aquifers, fisheries, mines, and old-growth forests as a socially-owned commons, with access regulated by the local community.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what leads to the ruin of such resources. Pass.

[ QUOTE ]
*The replacement of environmental and other regulatory laws with cost-based fees for access to natural resources, and common law tort damages for pollution and other impositions of cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, who determines these fees? Sounds like getting rid of one group of central planners for another. Property rights accomplishes this for free.

[ QUOTE ]
*A totally free and unregulated market between the worker-controlled large enterprises, consumer and producer co-ops, social service mutuals, family farms and small businesses, and the self-employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, needless qualification. Just say "free and unregulated market" and leave it at that. The rest just exposes hidden biases and agendas.

[ QUOTE ]
The final goal would be a society in which (in Benjamin Tucker's words) "the natural wage of labor in a free market is its product," and all transactions--whether trade or gift--are voluntary exchanges of labor-product between producers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds good, but the above list would not achieve it.

Re: platform for coalition of left- and right-libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll pass.

But then again, I'm not sure I'm either a right or left libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you pass if given the choice between this system and the current system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably.

Re: platform for coalition of left- and right-libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
from Kevin Tuckers work

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you mean Kevin Carson, no?

Anyways, I wouldn't consider myself a mutualist, but I am mostly in agreement (or at the worst partial agreement) with these ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
*Syndicalist seizure of large enterprises (the Fortune 500 might be a useful proxy) by radical industrial unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said in other posts, I'm not sure its fair to say that all large enterprises should be turned over to the workers. I think many ought to be, but the decision of which ones should be based on whether or not those in charge of the corporation have a legitimate claim (i.e., most of their profits don't come from govt benefits). So I agree with this idea, so long as its carried out correctly and not by just having workers seize all enterproses of size x or greater.

[ QUOTE ]
The devolution of government services, as quickly as possible, to local, cooperative ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good.

[ QUOTE ]
*The elimination of all corporate welfare and government subsidies, and the provision of roads and utilities on a cost-basis to those who use them (which would of course mean a radical decentralization of the economy, an end to suburban sprawl, and the growth of small-scale production for local markets).

[/ QUOTE ]

Cost-based to whom? (I mean, who's getting the $$ here?) I'm sympathetic to this idea, since I *do* think there that there can be public property in an anarchist society--so if he's basically saying that the people who use them regularly have homesteaded them, then that's cool.

[ QUOTE ]
*The nullification of all property titles based on government grants of large tracts of land, never actually appropriated by the grantee's direct occupancy and use; and the homesteading of all such unowned land on the basis of "the land to the tiller."

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
*The elimination of all legal barriers to the formation of mutual banks, by which working people can mobilize their own low-interest credit for cooperative enterprises, self-employment, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I'd be opposed to such legal barriers, so this one is good.

[ QUOTE ]
*The elimination of all patent laws, which enable large corporations to cartelize their industries by controlling modern production technology among themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
*The treatment of scarce resources like aquifers, fisheries, mines, and old-growth forests as a socially-owned commons, with access regulated by the local community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree with this one--I'm not opposed to the ownership of 'scarce resources' (aren't all resources scarce?). I tend to think that these things should be treated like any other business, and hence in an anrchist society some might be run/owned as you suggest and some might follow a more 'traditional' business model.

[ QUOTE ]
*The replacement of environmental and other regulatory laws with cost-based fees for access to natural resources, and common law tort damages for pollution and other impositions of cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, again, I think that some cases of 'natural resources' (not sure exactly what this means) might be owned publicly, and some not. But I definitely agree with the elimation of federal regulation and the treatment of, eg pollution damage, as similar to any other type of property damage (Rothbard has an excellent article about this: "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution".)

[ QUOTE ]
*A totally free and unregulated market between the worker-controlled large enterprises, consumer and producer co-ops, social service mutuals, family farms and small businesses, and the self-employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though I think if there are large worker-controlled enterprises there may also be traditional large enterprises (though I think large enterprises, be they worker controlled or not, would be far less dominant than in our current society).

So yeah, I mostly agree with this stuff.

Re: platform for coalition of left- and right-libertarians
 

nietz you seem okay
can keep your stuff when we win
[censored]! in the wrong thread!