Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

Isn't social liberal/economic conservative coincidental with libertarian?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't social liberal/economic conservative coincidental with libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been addressed. Social liberal/economic conservative is considered more moderate than a libertarian.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

Same leanings, different magnitudes. Libertarians typically identify as libertarians. Haven't met too many wishy-washy libertarians.

I intended the social/econ categories to pick up the Democrat/Republican/Independent type statists.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

mutualist, anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
ACist here will say "tragedy of the commons" and dismiss all public property.

[/ QUOTE ] \

My point is that this isn't a view held by all ACists, as the article linked is a pr-public property article written by an ACist. It certainly isn't a position all ACists hold, but I don't think the view that "all property must be privately owned" is essential or even central to AC.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
mutualist , anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see that some others on here are aware of this term. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
mutualist, anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private proberty based on occupancy and use? Like squatter's rights? Do you have any links to information about that?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mutualist, anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private proberty based on occupancy and use? Like squatter's rights? Do you have any links to information about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.mutualist.org

lot of info here, you can see in the reading section that he takes info from all sides of anarchism like roderick long, pierre proudhon, tucker, kropotokin, etc.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
mutualist, anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine whether and to what degree someone is using the land?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

Thanks, after reading a bit it sounds kind of like Anarchy for Hippies [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mutualist, anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine whether and to what degree someone is using the land?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to add that a significant point of divergence between most ACists and most mutualists is that most mutualists also hold that land cannot be legitimately rented, since then the landlord is no longer using the land and is hence basically taking money from the occupant when the land isn't even his or hers.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to add that a significant point of divergence between most ACists and most mutualists is that most mutualists also hold that land cannot be legitimately rented, since then the landlord is no longer using the land and is hence basically taking money from the occupant when the land isn't even his or hers.

[/ QUOTE ]
uhhg, just when I was starting to like mutualism.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mutualist, anarchist who opposes capitliasm but supports private property based on occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine whether and to what degree someone is using the land?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that Costa Rica's land ownership is similar to this, I think over there if you do not occupy your property for 6 months (?) or somehting then others can move in and claim the property. This is why some surfers who own houses along the coast pay locals to live on the property when they are back in the States.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
uhhg, just when I was starting to like mutualism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While (as a strict Lockean in terms of property rights) I share your distaste for this particular tenet, I hope this doesn't lead you to dismiss the whole of mutualism, for there are a lot of good ideas there as well.

And while absentee landlordism may be a point of contention among ACists and mutualists, I think there is growing consensus that both models may be able to exist side by side in a stateless society (just as traditioanl 'corporations' and worker-owned cooperatives may exist together).

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to add that a significant point of divergence between most ACists and most mutualists is that most mutualists also hold that land cannot be legitimately rented, since then the landlord is no longer using the land and is hence basically taking money from the occupant when the land isn't even his or hers.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like mutualism draws on labor-mixing arguments. Would you agree, nietz? If not, how does what was once one person's property become another's without the first's consent?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uhhg, just when I was starting to like mutualism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While (as a strict Lockean in terms of property rights) I share your distaste for this particular tenet, I hope this doesn't lead you to dismiss the whole of mutualism, for there are a lot of good ideas there as well.

And while absentee landlordism may be a point of contention among ACists and mutualists, I think there is growing consensus that both models may be able to exist side by side in a stateless society (just as traditioanl 'corporations' and worker-owned cooperatives may exist together).

[/ QUOTE ]

The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]

i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has to be a matter of degree though. For example, if I'm using a piece of land as a shop to make my widgits in, but I'm only there once a week (or I am perfectly capable of making widgits in my own house that I'm occupying as a dwelling), who decides whether the land is being "used" or not?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i'd have to read up a bit more on this point, but i think as long as the property is used for work or shelter that's fine. but some property is abandoned for a long time, or forever and at that point someone else should be able to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has to be a matter of degree though. For example, if I'm using a piece of land as a shop to make my widgits in, but I'm only there once a week (or I am perfectly capable of making widgits in my own house that I'm occupying as a dwelling), who decides whether the land is being "used" or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this just boils down to a complete absence of private land. If the social norm is such that the allocation of land to individuals is decided democratically, then an individual does not own land in any meaningful sense; the majority always has eminent domain. "Private" land in such a system would be illusory; land can only appear to be private if the majority have elected for the "owner" to have it.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this just boils down to a complete absence of private land. If the social norm is such that the allocation of land to individuals is decided democratically, then an individual does not own land in any meaningful sense; the majority always has eminent domain. "Private" land in such a system would be illusory; land can only appear to be private if the majority have elected for the "owner" to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private property is fine, to the extent that it is being used. If you have people with no home, and a house or factory that is abandoned, the people should be able to move in and claim shelter.

This is certainly better than landlordism, where a few people decide who lives where instead of the community as a whole.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this just boils down to a complete absence of private land. If the social norm is such that the allocation of land to individuals is decided democratically, then an individual does not own land in any meaningful sense; the majority always has eminent domain. "Private" land in such a system would be illusory; land can only appear to be private if the majority have elected for the "owner" to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private property is fine, to the extent that it is being used. If you have people with no home, and a house or factory that is abandoned, the people should be able to move in and claim shelter.

This is certainly better than landlordism, where a few people decide who lives where instead of the community as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This topic deserves its own thread, but who decides whether some property is being used? If I park my car for an hour is it up for grabs? What if I park it for a day? A month? 5 years?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mentioned something about the "community" voting on it. Would the "community" be able to democratically take away the property of someone that hasn't agreed to submit to their decision?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mentioned something about the "community" voting on it. Would the "community" be able to democratically take away the property of someone that hasn't agreed to submit to their decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, I can't think of a situation in which a community would deny someone a right to shelter. That's pretty terrible.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mentioned something about the "community" voting on it. Would the "community" be able to democratically take away the property of someone that hasn't agreed to submit to their decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, I can't think of a situation in which a community would deny someone a right to shelter. That's pretty terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
You and nietz should do thread about it so we stop cluttering this one up.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
You and nietz should do thread about it so we stop cluttering this one up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. It's a very interesting subject.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs..."

Seriously, make a new thread! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because him having more than he needs creates a class system and puts others at his mercy, which i don't find very desirable.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree in part with your sentiment, I think the mutualist view of land ownership places an unnecessary and unethical restriction on voluntary transactions. Unnecessary, because the phenomenon where a small % of people own the vast majority of land is a product of Statism (of both capitalist and socialist varieties) and could not happen in a free society.
Unethical, because it is a limitation on what consenting individuals with what is theirs.

But, as I stated before, I do think that different communities might handle the land issue differently, and that there is no real need to come to a complete consensus on the issue.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because him having more than he needs creates a class system and puts others at his mercy, which i don't find very desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is building housing in this scenario?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

the landlord certainly did not.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
the landlord certainly did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he provided capital to make it happen.

If you eliminate the possiblity of renting property to others, what incentive is there to build apartments? What does someone without the resources or desire to own property do? Just wait around for someone to abandon existing housing?

You've excluded rental markets - basically you are creating a scenario of extreme rent control, with a maximum of $0. What normally happens in rent control situations is that rich people get the few cheap apartments available because they can leverage their connections and money (i.e. they can afford the black market (bribery)) and everyone else has to move somewhere else. Nobody builds anything new. In other words, a classic pricecap-induced shortage.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

Where did he get the capital?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where did he get the capital?

[/ QUOTE ]

A magic pony. Or, he stuffed a bunch of bald eagles into a juicer and sold bald eagle juice for $500/gallon. What difference does it make?

The question is who is building apartments for people who need housing when you've eliminated any incentive for people to do so.

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

well, if to make that money he had rented previous property, would that make any sense?

Re: Forum Political Identity Poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
well, if to make that money he had rented previous property, would that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't it?

Are you going to answer the question, or are you going to keep driving the discussion into the tar pit?