What is a "winger" to you?

[Rhea]

I'm in a debate on another board and thought it would be interesting to pose the same question here.

What is the "right wing" to you?
What is the "left wing" to you?

It may be important to also state your frame of reference. American, Ex-pat, non-American, etc. Since the line of "center" can vary wildly. The discussion on the other board was about the extremes - the wingers, but interestingly several people did not feel there was a difference between Right and Right Wing.

Your thoughts and opinions?

[Stinger]

I'm in a debate on another board and thought it would be interesting to pose the same question here.

What is the "right wing" to you?
What is the "left wing" to you?

It may be important to also state your frame of reference. American, Ex-pat, non-American, etc. Since the line of "center" can vary wildly. The discussion on the other board was about the extremes - the wingers, but interestingly several people did not feel there was a difference between Right and Right Wing.

Your thoughts and opinions? Good question. I'm an American. I think that a "winger" is someone who wants to use the government to force his views on others. Being simplistic: I think that the right wingers want to impose their religious views on people's personal lives, and the left wingers want to control my paycheck. I think that the people in the middle are those who don't want anyone controlling their life. They want to provide for their family, but they believe in a safety net. They mostly have good values, but don't want their values decided upon by others. Just my opinion.

[Xoxarle]

Perhaps because my political compass was honed in Europe, my answer would be as follows:

The Right Wing is approx 20% of American voters.
The Left Wing is approx 2% of American voters.

The Left Wing is a bogeyman invoked by Right Wing commentators to motivate their base. What they perceive as Left Wing is largely the spectrum from Center Left through to Center Right. There is no genuine Left Wing political movement in this country, and probably never has been.

[general_koffi]

Right-winger - supports a decentralized economy and a free market, with a minimized economic role for the government, with low taxes on private economic activity as a result and no taxes or restrictions at all as the extremist view.

Left-winger - supports a centralized economy with a collectivized market, and many services provided by the government, as opposed to the private sector. Advocates heavy taxation, or no private ownership at all as the extremist view.

Anything beyond that is pure interpolation, based on clusters of issues that economic right-wingers and left-wingers have been associated with. For instance, the right to bear arms is a "right-wing" issue, because it is typically championed by those who also support the free market et al. Likewise, on the other side, for something like abortion rights.

I don't believe political theory can be broken down into a simple two-dimensional line.

Speaking of political theory, this seems more appropriate for PE&ST. Off it goes...

[Rudolph]

If you don't include redistribution of wealth in your definition of left winger, then you're a right winger. :devil1:

[Preno]

Left-wingers support a democratic economy, whereas right-wingers support a private-property driven economy. But I find the words 'capitalist' and 'socialist' more useful (except for the ambiguity of the word 'capitalist', which is usually not a problem) - what counts as prototypically 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' varies from country to country (for example, whether it has religious connotations or not).
I don't believe political theory can be broken down into a simple two-dimensional line.Actually, a line is one-dimensional. Unless you're talking about some of these beasts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve)...

But what I wanted to say was that you're quite correct, one's political position, at least if it is reasonable principled, cannot be adequately captured by a point in continuous space. Principles are discrete and can differ in arbitrarily many respects. Thus, to imagine that it is possible to project them onto a continuous map is an illusion. Sometimes a useful illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

[Stinger]

Left-wingers support a democratic economy, whereas right-wingers support a private-property driven economy. But I find the words 'capitalist' and 'socialist' more useful (except for the ambiguity of the word 'capitalist', which is usually not a problem) - what counts as prototypically 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' varies from country to country (for example, whether it has religious connotations or not). Wouldn't you agree that most people want to own their own property? If not, where is your poll? Wingers by definition, are people on the extreme end of the political spectrum.

[Preno]

Wouldn't you agree that most people want to own their own property? If not, where is your poll? Wingers by definition, are people on the extreme end of the political spectrum.That most people want to own their own property is a tautology (ETA: or rather, that 'people own their own property' is a tautology). I'm not in a position to say what "left/right-wing" means, but it appears to be commonly used to refer to a broader part of the political spectrum, not just fringe extremists.

[Stinger]

That most people want to own their own property is a tautology. I'm not in a position to say what "left/right-wing" means, but it appears to be commonly used to refer to a broader part of the political spectrum, not just fringe extremists. I'm not calling you a "fringe extremist". I'm simply saying that most people do not agree with your concept of public ownership. Do you think that deep down, most people agree with you, but they are simply voting against their own self interest when they vote for the capitalists?

[Preno]

I'm not calling you a "fringe extremist". I'm simply saying that most people do not agree with your concept of public ownership. Do you think that deep down, most people agree with you, but they are simply voting against their own self interest when they vote for the capitalists?I didn't think you were calling me a "fringe extremist". But I didn't understand what your point is. Are you trying to demonstrate that my political position is flawed or that my characterization of the left/right-wing is incorrect? If the latter, I don't understand what use it is to point out that most people do not agree with my concept of public ownership, if the former, it is OT with respect to the current topic.

(And to answer your question, no, I don't think that deep down most people agree with me on political issues.)

[Rudolph]

I'm not in a position to say what "left/right-wing" means, but it appears to be commonly used to refer to a broader part of the political spectrum, not just fringe extremists.

Indeed, I view it in much the same way as a large house... you have the west wing, the east wing etc... Being in one wing says nothing of your position relative to the main entrance. There's nothing extreme about being a left winger or a right winger, but both wings contain extremist elements.
IMO American politics has transformed the common use of these temrs to a certain extent. I think it's because with only two parties, the battle has been to control the centre ground (and for far longer than in other democratic nations), so any strong deviation from this is conisdered extreme, in spite of the fact that the political spectrum is far broader than suggested by the american position.

[Metaphor]

Australian here.

My views on American politics: I think the two major parties are right (GOP) and centre to centre-right (Democratic). I think in many other countries, the mainstream right parties are in fact left of Democrats. So the US centre of gravity is right wing - socially and fiscally.

I think US commentators have an extremely distorted view of what counts as 'left wing' - I have heard Bill O'Reilly describe centrist positions as 'extreme left'.

[enoch007]

The differnces are now thouroughly rhetorical, used by the media to seperate points of view which are not consistent and simply obscure issues rather that clarify them. For Example:

are you a right winger? Meaning Conservative? Meaning you don't favor foreign military adventures (ala The Contras, Invasions of Grenada, Panama,
invlovement in Beruit '82, Gulf Wars I and II etc)
or that you (conservative) favor small government (like the huge Defense Dept) and want to keep Government off of peoples backs (but apparently not off of a woman's uterus) or does conservative simply mean you favor "family" values (just as long as it is your family and not someone else's) or a respect for life (as long as you are not mentally defective on Death Row in Texas or anyone unfortunate enough to get caught up in the military adventurism conservatives don't favor anyway). Or does it simply mean you like both Money and Jesus.

Or are you a left winger? Like, what is that, you favor Communism or Socialism (both moot conversations in USA, except among those willing to discuss such nonsense which automatically qualifies them for someone not to be taken seriously), or perhaps that you are an enviourmentalist ( although one has to be careful not to confuse the conservative, rancher and agricultural types who may also have traditions of enviornmental politics, maybe even older ones than the young tree-huggers) , or that you are anti-war (from a safe distance) or that you respect the rights of individuals (which is fine, but who isn't for individual rights? Especially when one is the individual in question. ) and in Washington, the left simply means any connection to the Democratic Party (the left wing of the single party American Government) with all those "leftist" democrats and their "liberal" programs (except, of course, for the "conservative" democrats who have even gained seats within the Democratic causus after the election of '06)

So you can see that in the hurly-burly rough and tumble world of Politics in the USA, the terms right and left are such hardened and fixed political positions with utterly shifting, vague and inconlusive moral outlooks.

One could say all right wingers are in/with, and acquieses to the Government line while all left wingers work politically outside of politics, mostly locally, with a marginalized, at best, public voice.

Or that Right wingers all work in the interests of power, their's , they're friends, someone else's

while left wingers dream alot, then recycle

[Canard DuJour]

Left-wingers support a democratic economy, whereas right-wingers support a private-property driven economy.

That's the crux of it.

Not that left-wingers think people shouldn't own anything. Rather, ownership is mediated by rules if there are social consequences.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's my own opinion of political thinking that the majority of people believe that they are "centrists" no matter how they might fall on the "left-right" dichotomy. It's also my opinion that the "left-right" dichotomy is an invention of the two-party political system. The beliefs and opinions of people vary so widely over so many issues, it's a stupidity to try to classify them as two broad groups. However, it's in the best interests of the two major American parties, as broad coalitions that are attempting to appear to have unified constituencies, to perpetuate such a dichotomy in order to psychologically reinforce their presence in the system.

Etc.

[Hooboy !!]

The concept of left and right-wing has changed from when it was first coined. Now-a-days, the right can be chracterized as "libertarian" or focused on the indivudual (individualism) and the left can be characterized as socialist with the focus on the community. However, an additional concept needs to be included, statism. Typically, libertarians prefer less state, but neoconservatives and the religious right-wing prefer a larger, more intrusive state. Meanwhile, on the left, anarchists and "bottom up" socialists prefer a minimalist (or entirely absent state) and communists prefer a powerful state.

So, really... the question is pretty two dimensional anymore.

[general_koffi]

Actually, a line is one-dimensional. Unless you're talking about some of these beasts...

My bad. I was thinking of what it *should* be, which is a two-dimensional graph. Left and right on the y-axis and 'authoritarian' and 'liberal' on the x.

[toth8]

I'm in a debate on another board and thought it would be interesting to pose the same question here.

What is the "right wing" to you?
What is the "left wing" to you?

It may be important to also state your frame of reference. American, Ex-pat, non-American, etc. Since the line of "center" can vary wildly. The discussion on the other board was about the extremes - the wingers, but interestingly several people did not feel there was a difference between Right and Right Wing.

Your thoughts and opinions?

Left = the different forms of socialism
Right = conservatism, facism

But these days the left right spectrum is increasingly outdated. I mean, where does libertarianism fit? Anarcho-capitalism? Islamism? Individualist anarchism? A two dimensional axis, like that political compass thing, is better suited to cataloguing political ideologies.

[RareBird]

American.

Right wing believes in survival of the fittest and winner-take-all. It tends to not want to think at all about who loses, what losing means, who suffers or what is written off in the big loss. It also is so narrow-mined as to resist planning of any kind--viewing "proactivety" and societal preventive medicine as unrealistic intellectual idealism and instead favors short-term reactionism in which the ruling power exercizes extreme force to make whatever inconvenience or threat appear to quickly "go away".

The left wing is the opposite. It believes in learning from mistakes, investing in preventive measures for societal ills, is willing to sacrifice some personal wealth as the price of an inclusive society that does not accept the head-in-the-sand, wholesale write-off of people.

[Stinger]

I didn't think you were calling me a "fringe extremist". But I didn't understand what your point is. Are you trying to demonstrate that my political position is flawed or that my characterization of the left/right-wing is incorrect? If the latter, I don't understand what use it is to point out that most people do not agree with my concept of public ownership, if the former, it is OT with respect to the current topic.

(And to answer your question, no, I don't think that deep down most people agree with me on political issues.) Well, I didn't make my point very well. I mainly just didn't agree with your definition of "democratic economy". In your system, there is no private ownership, only public ownership. In the capitalist system, there are both public and private ownerships allowed. Which is the more democratic? For example, in America there are many ESOPs. Some do well, some do not.

[Stinger]

Australian here.

My views on American politics: I think the two major parties are right (GOP) and centre to centre-right (Democratic). I think in many other countries, the mainstream right parties are in fact left of Democrats. So the US centre of gravity is right wing - socially and fiscally.

I think US commentators have an extremely distorted view of what counts as 'left wing' - I have heard Bill O'Reilly describe centrist positions as 'extreme left'. I hear this argument all the time that Americans are knuckle dragging right wingers, but I'd like to see some examples. Most Americans don't want to pay a lot of taxes but support a "safety net" and are kind hearted. How is that right winger. Do Australians absolutely love paying taxes? Maybe the size of your government is a little larger and maybe you provide more benefits for your citizens, I don't know. But again, I'd like some specifics.

[enoch007]

American.

Right wing believes in survival of the fittest and winner-take-all. It tends to not want to think at all about who loses, what losing means, who suffers or what is written off in the big loss. It also is so narrow-mined as to resist planning of any kind--viewing "proactivety" and societal preventive medicine as unrealistic intellectual idealism and instead favors short-term reactionism in which the ruling power exercizes extreme force to make whatever inconvenience or threat appear to quickly "go away".

The left wing is the opposite. It believes in learning from mistakes, investing in preventive measures for societal ills, is willing to sacrifice some personal wealth as the price of an inclusive society that does not accept the head-in-the-sand, wholesale write-off of people.


in other words, Right Wing=Bad
Left-Wing=Good

ahhhh, I'm glad that's over.:rolleyes:

[RareBird]

in other words, Right Wing=Bad
Left-Wing=Good

ahhhh, I'm glad that's over.:rolleyes:

Pretty much (in spirit). Right wing thinks it's the good guys and paints the left as godless evil. Meanwhile its basic platform is to accept winner-take-all and shut its eyes to what "losing" means as if it just dissappears from sight and no longer exists. Well, it does exist and only disappears if one chooses not to look. Left is a platform of humans taking responsibility for humans. Right projects a god and says it must be the will of god that some lose or fail and others succeed. To me that is falsehood and falshood equates into evil.

[Preno]

Well, I didn't make my point very well. I mainly just didn't agree with your definition of "democratic economy". In your system, there is no private ownership, only public ownership. In the capitalist system, there are both public and private ownerships allowed. Which is the more democratic? For example, in America there are many ESOPs. Some do well, some do not.Even in an entirely democratic economy, private ownership can for all practical purposes be maintained. The house you live in in a socialist society is for all practical purposes yours, even if it may belong to the community. Of course, if you define 'private ownership' exclusively as 'absolutely private, with no-one else having no say in it', then the set of instances to which it can be applied will be equally exclusive, even under capitalism.

And the system that's more democratic is the one where people have more say in decisions that affect them. What do you mean by 'democratic' if you disagree, then?

[Metaphor]

I hear this argument all the time that Americans are knuckle dragging right wingers, but I'd like to see some examples. Most Americans don't want to pay a lot of taxes but support a "safety net" and are kind hearted. How is that right winger. Do Australians absolutely love paying taxes? Maybe the size of your government is a little larger and maybe you provide more benefits for your citizens, I don't know. But again, I'd like some specifics.

Socially -

As far as I know, the only Western nation that uses the death penalty (and uses it with utter abandon in Texas). Opposition to the death penalty almost always comes from the left. In Australia, not one single party that I know of, including the most right wing, supports the death penalty.

39% of Americans are self-described born-again Christians. And those whacky born-agains, well, they don't tend to be left on social issues.


Fiscally -

Unlike every other Western nation, no nationalised medicine.

I hear what appears to be extreme dislike for public welfare from the American right - from libertarians, conservatives and centrists.

Miscellaneous

The American military budget is something in the order of the next 20 countries combined. The military is traditionally a staple of the right wing. They love them their military.

Gun control. This very board attests to the US's anti gun-control vitriol.


Need I go on?

[Sultanist]

I have heard Bill O'Reilly describe centrist positions as 'extreme left'.
From the best I can tell, Bill O'Reilly defines "far-left" as pretty much anything which is in disagreement with Bill O'Reilly.
And "centrist" is by definition any view which Bill O'Reilly has. Because Bill O'Reilly is never either a right-winger or a left-winger.

[Triple Six]

Australian here.

My views on American politics: I think the two major parties are right (GOP) and centre to centre-right (Democratic). I think in many other countries, the mainstream right parties are in fact left of Democrats. So the US centre of gravity is right wing - socially and fiscally.

I think US commentators have an extremely distorted view of what counts as 'left wing' - I have heard Bill O'Reilly describe centrist positions as 'extreme left'.

Sums it up nicely for me too.

I would think of government health care, education and industry as left wing and privately owned as right wing.

Union representation as left wing, private ownership right wing.

Enforced anti discrimination leglisation as left wing, the right to hire and fire as right wing.

I also believe that it is possible and and indeed sensible to have a mixture of ideas that support both left and right concepts.

Far left and far right are a different beast altogether, these fringes are populated by the nutters detached from reality and are much closer to each other with their contempt of democracy and fantasies of massed punishment and oppression, than those oscillating around the centre.

[DietCoke]

What is the "right wing" to you?
What is the "left wing" to you?



Since this is a question about my opinion, rather than a question that begins a debate I would need to be up to speed on, I won't read the other responses before posting mine. I'm an American, mid 40s, male, white, married, live in the suburbs. I think that my views are more liberal than most, so I'm definately left of center, whatever "center" means.

I think the easiest way for me to proceed is to simply name names. I think Amy Goodman is a left winger, while Brit Hume is a right winger. (Sorry, I realize I just lost everyone outside the U.S.). I have intentionally chosen people who, I believe, think of themselves not as entertainers, but serious journalists, and I have tried to avoid the total nutballs, like Ann Coulter or Dick Gregory. (I refer to them as lunatics, not wingers...a subtle distinction).

So, here's my first criteria: Wingers are not complete nutjobs who say anything at anytime, simply because they want to keep their name in the spotlight (Coulter), or because they see a flash of light that compells them (Gregory). Instead, wingers are people who attempt to engage their brains in serious issues, but they have primarily dedicated their careers to the task of fitting facts to fit their positions (Goodman and Hume).

My second criteria is this: Wingers aren't willing to reconsider their position when presented with a compelling argument.

Lastly, I'll just add that, for me, it really has little to do with left, right or how extreme the positions are. And, finally, living in this enforced dichotomy sucks. I long for the day when people rise up and realize that it is possible to have more than two sides to an issue.


EDIT: I just realized that I think I misread the question. I thought you were asking what a "winger" was. But I see in the body of your post, you have "right wing" and "left wing." Now, having looked at the responses, I see that a few others had the same thought. If the question is what the right concerns itself, versus what the left concerns itself with, here is my revised answer:

The right is about self interest.
The left includes the interest of others to a greater degree.

While that may sound like a condemnation of the right, I don't mean it as such. I think that people who pursue self-interest also believe that everyone can pursue self-interest, so it's all good.

[Bonniedundee]

Before I write I should warn I don't think all the movements that call themselves left or right are correct by my ideas of left and right.

Hence to me the Soviets were rightwing and the Old right were mainly leftwingers, but my definitions fit well enough.
of course I think the words left and right, like socialist and capitalist arelargely redudant.

What is the "right wing" to you?
Rightwing is for authority, centralisation and the state over society.
What is the "left wing" to you?The left is for liberty, equality and the individual over the state.

[Bonniedundee]

Left-wingers support a democratic economy, whereas right-wingers support a private-property driven economy. But I find the words 'capitalist' and 'socialist' more useful (except for the ambiguity of the word 'capitalist', which is usually not a problem) - what counts as prototypically 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' varies from country to country (for example, whether it has religious connotations or not).These two largely meet, take an area run on legitimate lockean property rights, this would be socialist or at worst distributionist in structure.

You confuse statist legal titles and legitimate property based on self-ownership.

[Preno]

No, they don't "meet". One says that roads, schools, factories, harbours, mines, ... should be owned privately, the other that they should be owned collectively.

And I've never even heard a reasonable and consistent delimitation of "self-ownership', so I am at loss as to what to imagine under "legitimate property based on self-ownership". What on Pluto does self-ownership have to do with who owns roads, factories, mines, ...?

[Bonniedundee]

No, they don't "meet". One says that roads, schools, factories, harbours, mines, ... should be owned privately, the other that they should be owned collectively.So?

In lockean rights(ancap rights.) you cannot own unowned land without mixing your labour with it directly and leaving property to go to waste allows people to squat on it and claim it themselves, even with today's population if this was the only way land had been brought under ownership there'd be masses of unheld land.

And as Marx commented on, it is almost impossible to get people to work for a wage when there is plenty of good, free land around.

Add to this the fact that there'd be no money monopoly, therefore credit would far cheaper, there would be precious few capitalists as you could just as easily pool credit with your fellow workers and set up a co-op.

And I've never even heard a reasonable and consistent delimitation of "self-ownership', so I am at loss as to what to imagine under "legitimate property based on self-ownership". What on Pluto does self-ownership have to do with who owns roads, factories, mines, ...?Self-ownership just means you own yourself and your body and your labour.

It is the basis for all anarchist and libertarian thought. In lockean rights the only way to gain ownership of unowned natural resources is through mixing your labour with them, this is a follow on from self-ownership, although communism, syndaclism, mutualism and geoism are equally valid from self-ownership.

[Dryhad]

I hear this argument all the time that Americans are knuckle dragging right wingers, but I'd like to see some examples. Most Americans don't want to pay a lot of taxes but support a "safety net" and are kind hearted. How is that right winger. Do Australians absolutely love paying taxes? Maybe the size of your government is a little larger and maybe you provide more benefits for your citizens, I don't know. But again, I'd like some specifics.
I should point out that Australia is not one of the countries with a major "right-wing" party left of the Democrats. However, your post is a perfect example of exactly what Metaphor is saying. You think that endorsing some small level of welfare makes for far leftist policies. It doesn't! There are places in Europe where the major right-wing candidate advocates a reduction of welfare, "though not all of it, obviously. That wouldn't be right."

Too often people seem to think that the major parties in their own country are the epitomy of left and right. Here's (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20061115) a typical example. "The major party in power calls itself left wing, therefore we are a left wing nation". The Democrats are centrist at best, and center-right on average (thank you very much, blue dogs).

[Preno]

So?

In lockean rights(ancap rights.) you cannot own unowned land without mixing your labour with it directly and leaving property to go to waste allows people to squat on it and claim it themselves, even with today's population if this was the only way land had been brought under ownership there'd be masses of unheld land.

And as Marx commented on, it is almost impossible to get people to work for a wage when there is plenty of good, free land around.

Add to this the fact that there'd be no money monopoly, therefore credit would far cheaper, there would be precious few capitalists as you could just as easily pool credit with your fellow workers and set up a co-op.Since there is very little land that has not had someone's labour mixed with it, this makes the theory kinda irrelevant today. Plus, I really don't see why I should gain the right exclude everyone else from having a say in what to do with a patch of land just because I happen to have "mixed my labour with it".

As for the last paragraph, all that needs to be said is that the more oriented towards private property a country is, the more unequality is present (as measured by the Gini coefficient, e.g.).
Self-ownership just means you own yourself and your body and your labour.

It is the basis for all anarchist and libertarian thought. In lockean rights the only way to gain ownership of unowned natural resources is through mixing your labour with them, this is a follow on from self-ownership, although communism, syndaclism, mutualism and geoism are equally valid from self-ownership.Curiously, it is not the basis for my thought, and I consider myself a libertarian socialist. I don't think it is good practice to base one's philosophy on vague formulations (by which I mean that you "own your labour") that only serve to further confuse the issue. It is acceptable practice to use them as pointers, of course.

(Also what is the difference between saying "you own yourself" and "you own your body"?)

[Bonniedundee]

Since there is very little land that has not had someone's labour mixed with it, this makes the theory kinda irrelevant today.What do you mean? This is incorrect, those who own it rarely did through this principle nor bought from someone who did.

Plus, I really don't see why I should gain the right exclude everyone else from having a say in what to do with a patch of land just because I happen to have "mixed my labour with it".Me neither, Lockean rights do stipulate that their must be enough to go around.

As for the last paragraph, all that needs to be said is that the more oriented towards private property a country is, the more unequality is present (as measured by the Gini coefficient, e.g.).
Show me a country that actually respects lockean rights? This is my whole point, capitalism has always talked of property rights but never heeded them, even lockean rights minus the two provisos that land not be wasted and their be enough to go around have never been taken seriously by capitalism.

Curiously, it is not the basis for my thought, and I consider myself a libertarian socialist. I don't think it is good practice to base one's philosophy on vague formulations (by which I mean that you "own your labour") that only serve to further confuse the issue. It is acceptable practice to use them as pointers, of course.It is even worse to base your philosophy on vage feelings or worst of all utilitarianism.

It is the basis of social anarchism, just not in so many words, the idea that you can only be morally the best person with total freedom is the same thing.
(Also what is the difference between saying "you own yourself" and "you own your body"?)
There is no difference really.

[Preno]

What do you mean? This is incorrect, those who own it rarely did through this principle nor bought from someone who did.In a century or so, the question of who mixed his labour with what would become irrelevant. Unless you are saying that because someone's great-grand-grand-father "mixed his labour with a piece of land", it constitutes a basis for an eternal claim on that piece of land, no matter what, of course - but that still could not justify the fact that at the current moment, it would be equivalent to any other kind of system based on private property of the means of production including land.
Me neither, Lockean rights do stipulate that their must be enough to go around.But there isn't, because there six freaking billions of people on Earth. Plus, most people live in cities, therefore, the land question is sorta irrelevant to them. Unless you are suggesting that people who have a choice between 21st century capitalism and going back to till a piece of land have an actual choice, that's one more reason for considering "Lockean rights" irrelevant.
Show me a country that actually respects lockean rights? This is my whole point, capitalism has always talked of property rights but never heeded them, even lockean rights minus the two provisos that land not be wasted and their be enough to go around have never been taken seriously by capitalism.Perhaps, but it is still the case that "free market" correlates with higher social inequality.
It is the basis of social anarchism, just not in so many words, the idea that you can only be morally the best person with total freedom is the same thing.Phrases like "the best person with total freedom" are even vaguer than the formulation about "owning your labour". It does not elucidate the matter not one bit.

[Bonniedundee]

In a century or so, the question of who mixed his labour with what would become irrelevant. Unless you are saying that because someone's great-grand-grand-father "mixed his labour with a piece of land", it constitutes a basis for an eternal claim on that piece of land, no matter what, of course - but that still could not justify the fact that at the current moment, it would be equivalent to any other kind of system based on private property of the means of production including land.You could not own it eternally whatever as you cannot let it go to waste and their most be enough to go around.
I don't understand your other point about it loosing relevance whether your grandfather mixed his labour with the land.

But there isn't, because there six freaking billions of people on Earth. Plus, most people live in cities, therefore, the land question is sorta irrelevant to them. Unless you are suggesting that people who have a choice between 21st century capitalism and going back to till a piece of land have an actual choice, that's one more reason for considering "Lockean rights" irrelevantI recognise this quite recent(post WWII.) psychological phenomenon, that people might not want to go back to the land, that is an argument for another time, many anarchist including probably the greatest, Peter Kropotkin have talked about decentralised semi-rural, semi urban communes where many people do some agricultural work and the idea of modern cities is abandoned for decentralised living.

But it is true that even today there is enough good land to go around for all six billion people, in fact there is probably at least double the amount needed.

Perhaps, but it is still the case that "free market" correlates with higher social inequality.
How so? To correlate suggests data, data suggests examples of free markets, I see no examples.

Phrases like "the best person with total freedom" are even vaguer than the formulation about "owning your labour". It does not elucidate the matter not one bit.I simply talking about the popular idea in social anarchism that for full moral self-realisation man needs total freedom, this is the same thing as self-ownership.

[Preno]

You could not own it eternally whatever as you cannot let it go to waste and their most be enough to go around.
I don't understand your other point about it loosing relevance whether your grandfather mixed his labour with the land.Uh, whether the present society is free or not is not determined by whether tens of generations in the past, someone did something. If your system is equivalent to capitalism, except that generations ago, property was arrived at by "mixing labour with land", then your systems is just as unfree as capitalism. Saying that centuries ago when this or that island/continent was colonized, it was "legitimate", dubious as such a claim is even in such a case, becomes entirely irrelevant.
I recognise this quite recent(post WWII.) psychological phenomenon, that people might not want to go back to the land, that is an argument for another time, many anarchist including probably the greatest, Peter Kropotkin have talked about decentralised semi-rural, semi urban communes where many people do some agricultural work and the idea of modern cities is abandoned for decentralised living.This is not a "psychological" phenomenon, this is an economic phenomenon. Technology has advanced, so we don't need as many people in agriculture and we need many people working with computers, or designing new technologies, or doctors or drivers and so on. If you base your philosophy on the assumption that people could just go back to til land, then your philosophy doesn't have the slightest bit of relevance today.
How so? To correlate suggests data, data suggests examples of free markets, I see no examples.Dude, what do you not understand about the freer the market, the more inequality? You can't say "oh, but there are no completely free markets" - well, you can, but that would imply that you don't understand the fact that an economy can be closer or further from some ideal point. The closer it is to free market, the more inequality. That there is no Absolutely Free Market (TM) is again (how I love this word) irrelevant.
I simply talking about the popular idea in social anarchism that for full moral self-realisation man needs total freedom, this is the same thing as self-ownership.I suppose some anarchists argue that. I don't find the sentence particularly meaningful, though. The crux of the matter is precisely what counts as "total freedom". And the answer I get from anarchists is typically some equally vague rhetoric, usually also circular.

[Bonniedundee]

Uh, whether the present society is free or not is not determined by whether tens of generations in the past, someone did something. If your system is equivalent to capitalism, except that generations ago, property was arrived at by "mixing labour with land", then your systems is just as unfree as capitalism. Saying that centuries ago when this or that island/continent was colonized, it was "legitimate", dubious as such a claim is even in such a case, becomes entirely irrelevant.
You are missing the point, the point is that if land is appropriated in a legitimate way and property is always exchanged only in the legitimate ways ie no large scale coercion, then there will not be like modern capitalism.

Now you can argue that it could but this is a different issue and we are back to mine,Marx's and other's arguments about land monopoly and money monopoly being needed for modern capitalism.

This is not a "psychological" phenomenon, this is an economic phenomenon. Technology has advanced, so we don't need as many people in agriculture and we need many people working with computers, or designing new technologies, or doctors or drivers and so on. If you base your philosophy on the assumption that people could just go back to til land, then your philosophy doesn't have the slightest bit of relevance today.
I'm simply stating that any ancap market will be highly decentralised. I'm saying food would be grown locally, with many people doing some of their own growing, like Kropotkin argued, along with other their other work.

Also your arguments could be aimed at, at least, half the decentralised left.

Dude, what do you not understand about the freer the market, the more inequality? You can't say "oh, but there are no completely free markets" - well, you can, but that would imply that you don't understand the fact that an economy can be closer or further from some ideal point. The closer it is to free market, the more inequality. That there is no Absolutely Free Market (TM) is again (how I love this word) irrelevant.
How do you measure how if it is closer to the free market?

Even the very beginnings of capitalism in England was nothing like a free market, as Marx recounts, the state threw thousands and thousands off their land to create an urban proletariat and used a thousand other interventions.

By the time you get to the supposed "laissez faire" era of Robber barons the state intervention is already monumental. What you are talking about is the difference between neoliberalism and Keynesianism of course, this is more a change in tactics, ie a consensus between Big gov't, big business and big labour rather than a more class combative approach, than a real change in the levels of state intervention. Hell it is not over doing it to call Big business part of the state.
I suppose some anarchists argue that. I don't find the sentence particularly meaningful, though. The crux of the matter is precisely what counts as "total freedom". And the answer I get from anarchists is typically some equally vague rhetoric, usually also circular.Actually ancaps are better here, self-ownership is a more concrete logical argument than that used by many social anarchists.

What is your philosophical basis for libertarian socialism then?

[Preno]

You are missing the point, the point is that if land is appropriated in a legitimate way and property is always exchanged only in the legitimate ways ie no large scale coercion, then there will not be like modern capitalism.Yes, but that "legitimate way" is only possible when there is still "enough" left for everybody else. Which simply doesn't apply today, unless you expect that some new continent will be discovered soon.
I'm simply stating that any ancap market will be highly decentralised. I'm saying food would be grown locally, with many people doing some of their own growing, like Kropotkin argued, along with other their other work.

Also your arguments could be aimed at, at least, half the decentralised left.I don't hear many people on the left today claim that if we have the option of going back to til a piece of land, then we are free, nor do I hear them suggest to go back to individual agriculture.

(But it is indeed true that a lot of "decentralized leftists" make some kind of fetish out of "local production" as well, so you're partly right there.)
How do you measure how if it is closer to the free market?Well, looking at how much of the means of production (and transport and communication) is owned privately is a good indicator.
By the time you get to the supposed "laissez faire" era of Robber barons the state intervention is already monumental. What you are talking about is the difference between neoliberalism and Keynesianism of course, this is more a change in tactics, ie a consensus between Big gov't, big business and big labour rather than a more class combative approach, than a real change in the levels of state intervention. Hell it is not over doing it to call Big business part of the state.I repeat, the lower the amount of restraints placed on the market, the greater the inequality. Or I mean, do you believe that although this is the case, once the restraints are "completely" (whatever that would mean) done away with, inequality would just magically go away? Such a discontinuity sounds completely unnatural.
Actually ancaps are better here, self-ownership is a more concrete logical argument than that used by many social anarchists.

What is your philosophical basis for libertarian socialism then?It maximizes freedom. Which is not the same thing as "total freedom". For one thing, I don't understand what the latter means.

[Bonniedundee]

Yes, but that "legitimate way" is only possible when there is still "enough" left for everybody else. Which simply doesn't apply today, unless you expect that some new continent will be discovered soon.
I don't hear many people on the left today claim that if we have the option of going back to til a piece of land, then we are free, nor do I hear them suggest to go back to individual agriculturePlenty do this, have you read Kropotkin? He is kinda the most important libertarian socialist there is.

Anyway if all land was taken then according to lockean rights themselves something would have to be done to redress those who lose out, and that would be geoism or georgism.

And it is not true, there is still way more than enough land.

(But it is indeed true that a lot of "decentralized leftists" make some kind of fetish out of "local production" as well, so you're partly right there.)
Not just decentralised leftists but people as far apart as Marx, Henry George, Adam Smith and Joshua Ingalls realised the land must be monopolised before capitalism and exploitation can begin.

Now I realise modern society is slightly different what with consumerism and pop culture, full of what Erich Fromm called "having people", but I think it still basically applies.

And it can be a bit of fetish I suppose, but it is better than a fetish the other way towards centralisation, urbanisation and general bigness.

This is where ancaps aren't too cool, they are good on theory, like why public goods theory is crap, but the mainstream ancaps have far less than the social anarchists on things like the need for creative and artistic work, on human scale technology, on anarchistic education and decentralised communities.

Well, looking at how much of the means of production (and transport and communication) is owned privately is a good indicator.
Huh? The state is the executive committee of the ruling classes to quote Marx, it isn't much help if things are in there hands, and by private hands you mean a few capitalists I sure.

Would the same be true if as is likely with a lockean system, that all were in the hands of co-ops, the self-employed and a few small capitalists?

I repeat, the lower the amount of restraints placed on the market, the greater the inequality. Or I mean, do you believe that although this is the case, once the restraints are "completely" (whatever that would mean) done away with, inequality would just magically go away? Such a discontinuity sounds completely unnatural.That is because this is what we are taught to believe, but capitalism has never seen a completely free market, you are simply talking about when the state controlled power and wealth of the capitalists are slightly constrained in a liberal or keynesian corporatism, I agree that is probably better than neoliberalism or robber baron capitalism(although it does stupify the workers more.) but those systems are not free markets at all.

It maximizes freedom. Which is not the same thing as "total freedom". For one thing, I don't understand what the latter means.It means you get to do what you want as long as don't invade or coerce anyone else.

[atonal chaotic]

Since this seems to be what you're really asking:
No, I do not use or parse the term "-wing" to denote a more extreme form of "left" and "right."

[Preno]

Plenty do this, have you read Kropotkin? He is kinda the most important libertarian socialist there is.I have. But I said:
I don't hear many people on the left today claim that if we have the option of going back to til a piece of land, then we are free, nor do I hear them suggest to go back to individual agricultureSure, many draw inspiration from Kropotkin, but I don't think there are many that suggest going back to individual agriculture.
Anyway if all land was taken then according to lockean rights themselves something would have to be done to redress those who lose out, and that would be geoism or georgism.

And it is not true, there is still way more than enough land.First, wouldn't it be better to make decisions about land collectively, rather than grant the rights to do so to the descendants of the first X people that 'mixed their labour' with it, even if there is some compensation?

Second, what (roughly) do you mean by "enough"?
Not just decentralised leftists but people as far apart as Marx, Henry George, Adam Smith and Joshua Ingalls realised the land must be monopolised before capitalism and exploitation can begin.I was talking about local production, not about monopolization of land, but since you touched on the subject, how will your system prevent this from happening?

And I still don't understand what the merit of these "Lockean rights" is supposed to be. After a generation or two, they will stop making any difference, since they only apply to the process of land appropriation. (Unless they include some kind of georgism in them, which you hinted at.)
And it can be a bit of fetish I suppose, but it is better than a fetish the other way towards centralisation, urbanisation and general bigness.Yes. I really don't see why "locally grown" anything is in and of itself better than the same thing but "non-locally grown".
Huh? The state is the executive committee of the ruling classes to quote Marx, it isn't much help if things are in there hands, and by private hands you mean a few capitalists I sure.

Would the same be true if as is likely with a lockean system, that all were in the hands of co-ops, the self-employed and a few small capitalists?

That is because this is what we are taught to believe, but capitalism has never seen a completely free market, you are simply talking about when the state controlled power and wealth of the capitalists are slightly constrained in a liberal or keynesian corporatism, I agree that is probably better than neoliberalism or robber baron capitalism(although it does stupify the workers more.) but those systems are not free markets at all.Well, I understand your point. They are not completely free markets. But, surely the fact that the closer they are to free markets, the more inequality is present is an indicator of something? Or do you think that once you get really close to a "completely free market", this trend will be reversed?
It means you get to do what you want as long as don't invade or coerce anyone else.Well, what do you mean by coercion, then? You cannot define it in terms of freedom, because you just used the concept of coercion to explain what freedom means.

[Bonniedundee]

Sure, many draw inspiration from Kropotkin, but I don't think there are many that suggest going back to individual agriculture.It is not individual agriculture it is the communities envisioned by Kropotkin, Bookchin, Schumacher, Borsodi etc etc

First, wouldn't it be better to make decisions about land collectively, rather than grant the rights to do so to the descendants of the first X people that 'mixed their labour' with it, even if there is some compensation?
I do suggest that the local community decides upon the property rights used in the area, as long as they are libertarian rights ie sydnaclism, communist, lockean, geoist and mutualist.

Although I do want to limit even the local communities power as much as possible.

Second, what (roughly) do you mean by "enough"?Depends on the local community, it is a subjective thing.

I was talking about local production, not about monopolization of land, but since you touched on the subject, how will your system prevent this from happening?I'm a mutualist. But in lockeanism it is very unlikely that even today anywhere near enough land could be legitimately appropriated ie by mixing labour with unused resources.

If the local community percieved that there wasn't enough land to go around it could change to mutualist or geoism.

And I still don't understand what the merit of these "Lockean rights" is supposed to be. After a generation or two, they will stop making any difference, since they only apply to the process of land appropriation. (Unless they include some kind of georgism in them, which you hinted at.)Well lockeanism actually has a very geoist edge, althought it is often ignored.
In lockean rights you need to leave enough for others and you cannot waste natural resources, if the local community applies these then it would become mutualist or geoist if the land became taken up.

I think what you mean though is how without these provisos would it stop the owning of large estates by people. To this I put the old argument, as Ludwig Von Mises.

Nowhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the workings of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and that alone. As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely.

Basically the free market will tend to dissolve large estates and fortunes, even if a kind of slack lockeanism is used. Adam Smith himself commented on how the free market will bring equality because it is the state that creates monopolies and great fortunes.
However I still don't accept lockeanism without the provisos as legitimate and libertarian.

Yes. I really don't see why "locally grown" anything is in and of itself better than the same thing but "non-locally grown".Aren't you a libertarian socialist?
It is decentralism. To import many things from hundreds of miles away needs centralism and all its intendent ills.
Well, I understand your point. They are not completely free markets. But, surely the fact that the closer they are to free markets, the more inequality is present is an indicator of something? Or do you think that once you get really close to a "completely free market", this trend will be reversed?They are only a fraction closer if that, really you are just talking about a move from a kind of liberal corporatism or fascism ie a consensus between the state, big business and labour leaders to a move combative system, where a little power is moved from the state to outgrowths of the state like corporations.

Well, what do you mean by coercion, then? You cannot define it in terms of freedom, because you just used the concept of coercion to explain what freedom means.Coercion is a slightly vague concept, but it is generally physical aggression and the attempt to commit it.

[J-D]

Since this seems to be what you're really asking:
No, I do not use or parse the term "-wing" to denote a more extreme form of "left" and "right."Me neither, and I was taken by surprise and put in a false position the first time I found out that some people do.

[J-D]

It's also my opinion that the "left-right" dichotomy is an invention of the two-party political system.And your opinion collides with the incontestable historical facts of the invention of the political 'left-right' dichotomy in the French Revolution.

[J-D]

When I look at those political groupings which have historically been called 'left', and those which have historically been called 'right', what I see is that groupings on the 'left' have generally supported political action to reduce major social inequalities, while groupings on the 'right' have generally opposed them over this.

[J-D]

I don't believe political theory can be broken down into a simple two-dimensional line.But what I wanted to say was that you're quite correct, one's political position, at least if it is reasonable principled, cannot be adequately captured by a point in continuous space. Principles are discrete and can differ in arbitrarily many respects. Thus, to imagine that it is possible to project them onto a continuous map is an illusion. Sometimes a useful illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.The concept of left and right-wing has changed from when it was first coined. Now-a-days, the right can be chracterized as "libertarian" or focused on the indivudual (individualism) and the left can be characterized as socialist with the focus on the community. However, an additional concept needs to be included, statism. Typically, libertarians prefer less state, but neoconservatives and the religious right-wing prefer a larger, more intrusive state. Meanwhile, on the left, anarchists and "bottom up" socialists prefer a minimalist (or entirely absent state) and communists prefer a powerful state.

So, really... the question is pretty two dimensional anymore.My bad. I was thinking of what it *should* be, which is a two-dimensional graph. Left and right on the y-axis and 'authoritarian' and 'liberal' on the x.But these days the left right spectrum is increasingly outdated. I mean, where does libertarianism fit? Anarcho-capitalism? Islamism? Individualist anarchism? A two dimensional axis, like that political compass thing, is better suited to cataloguing political ideologies.If you try to use a hammer to drive a screw, and it doesn't work, there's something wrong with your choice of tools, but nothing wrong with the hammer. If you use the tool for the purpose for which it was designed, you will find there's nothing wrong with it.

[Preno]

It is not individual agriculture it is the communities envisioned by Kropotkin, Bookchin, Schumacher, Borsodi etc etcStill, predominantly agricultural communities. And today, we by far don't need as much people in agriculture than in Kropotkin's day.
I do suggest that the local community decides upon the property rights used in the area, as long as they are libertarian rights ie sydnaclism, communist, lockean, geoist and mutualist.

Although I do want to limit even the local communities power as much as possible.So what if some community happens to be located near some valuable resource, let's say coal or some ore? Why should that community have the exclusive right to use it, simply because they are closest to it? That doesn't sound libertarian at all to me.
Depends on the local community, it is a subjective thing.Well, I understand it's a subjective thing, but I can't really comment on "there is enough for everyone" if I have no idea what you mean by "enough".
I'm a mutualist. But in lockeanism it is very unlikely that even today anywhere near enough land could be legitimately appropriated ie by mixing labour with unused resources.

If the local community percieved that there wasn't enough land to go around it could change to mutualist or geoism.Alright, so in practice, at least for places with high enough density, it would be communal rather than private ownership. If what you are saying is that the right to use a piece of land should be granted to the individuals by the community (based on some set of rules, approximating 'Lockean rights'), we are in agreement (except that I don't view the community as completely sovereign, so the decision can be overridden by a higher level decision).
Well lockeanism actually has a very geoist edge, althought it is often ignored.
In lockean rights you need to leave enough for others and you cannot waste natural resources, if the local community applies these then it would become mutualist or geoist if the land became taken up.

I think what you mean though is how without these provisos would it stop the owning of large estates by people. To this I put the old argument, as Ludwig Von Mises.

[...]

Basically the free market will tend to dissolve large estates and fortunes, even if a kind of slack lockeanism is used. Adam Smith himself commented on how the free market will bring equality because it is the state that creates monopolies and great fortunes.
However I still don't accept lockeanism without the provisos as legitimate and libertarian.Well, monopolies or oligopolies arise quite naturally is situations where large investments are needed in order to even start a company in that area. Firms that do oil-related jobs all over the globes don't admit much new competition, even on a hypothetical "completely free market".

Of course, if you limit all production to the local, you will be correct, and some kind of "geoist free market" might even work, then. But to me, that's an insufferable price.
Aren't you a libertarian socialist?
It is decentralism. To import many things from hundreds of miles away needs centralism and all its intendent ills.Given today's level of technology, it doesn't make any sense that every state should make everything on its own. Today's major cutting-edge projects (with the exception of those done by a sole superpower..) are done in a collaboration of many countries (yes - unbelievably, Loren is right on that one).

And I really don't understand the "ills" of importing things, and in particular how it implies centralism. (And if it indeed did imply centralism, then I would be a proponent of centralism, because such a mode of production is the only rational one today.)

Also, how about resources like oil, won't you need to import those? Or will only those countries (or communities!) that have them have the right to use them?
Coercion is a slightly vague concept, but it is generally physical aggression and the attempt to commit it.I thought as much. But that's a very weak criterion, don't you think? It can be used to justify both 'libertarian' capitalism, socialism, state socialism, and so on. Surely coercion also works on other levels than simply the level of physical violence?

[Bonniedundee]

Still, predominantly agricultural communities. And today, we by far don't need as much people in agriculture than in Kropotkin's day.It is not just Kropotkin, many people today like Murray Bookchin, Schumacher, Borsodi and the like believe in these kind of communities.
It is not that it is predominantly agricultural, it is that most food is grown in the local community, alot of people would grow a portion of their food while doing other jobs as well and their will some places for specific farming to get most of the rest of the food for the community.
So what if some community happens to be located near some valuable resource, let's say coal or some ore? Why should that community have the exclusive right to use it, simply because they are closest to it? That doesn't sound libertarian at all to me.It depends, if it is just an individual or organisaion the community could apply a geoist fee to them, but if the whole community owned it I don't know, it would be the same for most kinds of community though.
Well, I understand it's a subjective thing, but I can't really comment on "there is enough for everyone" if I have no idea what you mean by "enough".Well if there are people renting and their is no free land in this community or the surrounding ones.
Alright, so in practice, at least for places with high enough density, it would be communal rather than private ownership. If what you are saying is that the right to use a piece of land should be granted to the individuals by the community (based on some set of rules, approximating 'Lockean rights'), we are in agreement (except that I don't view the community as completely sovereign, so the decision can be overridden by a higher level decision).Well land would be communual ownership, it would be anyway, but the only right the community would have would be to extract the ground and site rent in the georgist way.
Well, monopolies or oligopolies arise quite naturally is situations where large investments are needed in order to even start a company in that area. Firms that do oil-related jobs all over the globes don't admit much new competition, even on a hypothetical "completely free market".I don't think they often arise too naturally, only with scarce resourses(many geoists and mutualist ect would say even that isn't natural.), when you talk about large investments, you are basically talking about state created things.

Of course, if you limit all production to the local, you will be correct, and some kind of "geoist free market" might even work, then. But to me, that's an insufferable price.Well this is what real anarcho-capitalist would have to do.
But we have reached a fundamental disagreement, ironically it is rather the opposite of the starting disagreement, I'm arguing for a traditionally more leftwing position than you accept.
Have you ever read anything by the decentralised leftists like Borsodi or Schumacher, Sale or Kohr on this sort of thing?
I'll give you a few links.

http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/realnations/kohr.html
http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/radicalconsultation/index.html
http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/radicalconsultation/index.html
http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapter--decentralizedproductiontechnology.pdf
http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Chapter2.pdf
http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapter1.pdf



Given today's level of technology, it doesn't make any sense that every state should make everything on its own. Today's major cutting-edge projects (with the exception of those done by a sole superpower..) are done in a collaboration of many countries (yes - unbelievably, Loren is right on that one).
Well I happen to share the view that most things of importance can be done locally and only a few things need to be imported and that most importantly for a better living it is best to do this.

And I really don't understand the "ills" of importing things, and in particular how it implies centralism. (And if it indeed did imply centralism, then I would be a proponent of centralism, because such a mode of production is the only rational one today.)It isn't really the only rational one, in fact so many things can be done locally and they can be done so as to give the workers far more control and the individual far more freedom and fulfillment.

Also, how about resources like oil, won't you need to import those? Or will only those countries (or communities!) that have them have the right to use them?
Well obviously I can see that oil can be replaced on the local level, even today. For a few other commodities, you may have to import them unfortunately.
I thought as much. But that's a very weak criterion, don't you think? It can be used to justify both 'libertarian' capitalism, socialism, state socialism, and so on. Surely coercion also works on other levels than simply the level of physical violence?Well firstly I think physical violence is at the root of all other coercion and secondly it is a slippery slope, if you allow intervention for more things than this you end up with drugs laws, prostitution laws, gun control and smoking bans.

I sure you saw the kind of arguments given in favour of smoking bans in the thread on this site, pure tyranny.

[Preno]

It is not that it is predominantly agricultural, it is that most food is grown in the local community, alot of people would grow a portion of their food while doing other jobs as well and their will some places for specific farming to get most of the rest of the food for the community.Sorry, but I like rice. I also like to be able to eat fruits that don't grow in my latitude and I like fish. So sorry, but you haven't really convinced me to stop eat fruits and fish and go join your agricultural community.
It depends, if it is just an individual or organisaion the community could apply a geoist fee to them, but if the whole community owned it I don't know, it would be the same for most kinds of community though.I probably don't understand. How does that answer this objection of mine:
So what if some community happens to be located near some valuable resource, let's say coal or some ore? Why should that community have the exclusive right to use it, simply because they are closest to it? That doesn't sound libertarian at all to me.
Well if there are people renting and their is no free land in this community or the surrounding ones.There is "enough land" if people are renting and there is no free land in the community? I don't understand.
Well land would be communual ownership, it would be anyway, but the only right the community would have would be to extract the ground and site rent in the georgist way.I see.
I don't think they often arise too naturally, only with scarce resourses(many geoists and mutualist ect would say even that isn't natural.), when you talk about large investments, you are basically talking about state created things.Yeah, if you limit yourself to whatever you can build within one single agricultural community, then of course that's true. But no-one except semi-hermits and Irishmen would ever want do that.
Well this is what real anarcho-capitalist would have to do.Yet another reason to dismiss it as irrelevant, then.
But we have reached a fundamental disagreement, ironically it is rather the opposite of the starting disagreement, I'm arguing for a traditionally more leftwing position than you accept.Yes, you're arguing for a position that was relevant a century ago in feudal or early post-feudal Russia.
Have you ever read anything by the decentralised leftists like Borsodi or Schumacher, Sale or Kohr on this sort of thing?
I'll give you a few links.

http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/realnations/kohr.html
http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/radicalconsultation/index.html
http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/radicalconsultation/index.html
http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapter--decentralizedproductiontechnology.pdf
http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Chapter2.pdf
http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapter1.pdfNo, I haven't read any of that stuff, mostly because I already disagree with the premise that "local production" is somehow inherently better (or at any rate, that it is so much better that it trumps every other factor). I may or may not read through some of the links, but thanks anyway.
Well I happen to share the view that most things of importance can be done locally and only a few things need to be imported and that most importantly for a better living it is best to do this.Most things of importance? Like, computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.? Or are you trying to tell me that you want to go back to herbal medicine and horse-powered carts?
Well obviously I can see that oil can be replaced on the local level, even today. For a few other commodities, you may have to import them unfortunately.Yes, you would. I'm sorry, but resources are limited to certain areas, and most areas don't have all the resources they need. So you would need to import a hell lot of commodities (unless you wanna go back to the Middle Ages - and even then, stuff like salt or copperware was imported).
Well firstly I think physical violence is at the root of all other coercion and secondly it is a slippery slope, if you allow intervention for more things than this you end up with drugs laws, prostitution laws, gun control and smoking bans.The problem is that any kind of property requires the potential to use physical violence to protect it. Thus, every society that has any kind of property is, by your definition, unfree.

[Bonniedundee]

There is "enough land" if people are renting and there is no free land in the community? I don't understand.I meant there wouldn't be enough.

Yeah, if you limit yourself to whatever you can build within one single agricultural community, then of course that's true. But no-one except semi-hermits and Irishmen would ever want do that.You are misrepresenting these communities, they are not agricultural, they simply are decentralised and use human scale technology.

According to Ralph Borsodi at least 2/3 of things can be done on this level, according to others even more.

I don't think is the place for this kind of discussion, if you are interested read Kropotkin, Bookchin, Schumacher, Kohr, Sale, Borsodi, Mumford or one of the similar authors on this subject.

Yet another reason to dismiss it as irrelevant, then.Perhaps, but no more than almost all other anarchism.

Yes, you're arguing for a position that was relevant a century ago in feudal or early post-feudal Russia.You really don't seem to understand what the communities envisioned are.

You said you have read Kropotkin, have you The conquest of bread? Or Fields, factories and workshops? These are the communities envisioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields,_Factories_and_Workshops

Most things of importance? Like, computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.? Or are you trying to tell me that you want to go back to herbal medicine and horse-powered carts?Nope, I want to see an end to consumerism, as you should do if you are any kind of socialist, but most things can be produced on a decentralised level.

The problem is that any kind of property requires the potential to use physical violence to protect it. Thus, every society that has any kind of property is, by your definition, unfree.Huh? That statement could also be applied to protection of person. I see no problem with defence, I'm not a complete pacifist.

[Preno]

I meant there wouldn't be enough.Alright. But not all land has the same quality, right? It's quite probable that no-one would want to use the last unused bit of land the community has. Thus, the state of there not being enough land might never be reached, no matter how little land the community has.
You are misrepresenting these communities, they are not agricultural, they simply are decentralised and use human scale technology.Sorry, but I prefer modern to "human scale" technology.
According to Ralph Borsodi at least 2/3 of things can be done on this level, according to others even more.Yes, and according to me, computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printers, fish in landlocked countries, tea, coal, oil, etc. etc. cannot. So I'd say Ralph Borsodi is at best a wishful thinker.
I don't think is the place for this kind of discussion, if you are interested read Kropotkin, Bookchin, Schumacher, Kohr, Sale, Borsodi, Mumford or one of the similar authors on this subject.

Perhaps, but no more than almost all other anarchism.

You really don't seem to understand what the communities envisioned are.If they address my objection somewhere, you're welcome to point me towards that particular passage or chapter (or better yet, put it in your words).
You said you have read Kropotkin, have you The conquest of bread? Or Fields, factories and workshops? These are the communities envisioned.The former yes, the latter no. But as I pointed out a zillion times already, Kropotkin lived a hundred years ago in a feudal society.
Nope, I want to see an end to consumerism, as you should do if you are any kind of socialist, but most things can be produced on a decentralised level.Will you please stop repeating this mantra and address the question of how computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc. (which certainly form a pretty large bulk of today's production) are going to be made "locally"?
Huh? That statement could also be applied to protection of person. I see no problem with defence, I'm not a complete pacifist.Yes, of course it could also be applied to the protection of person, that's why your definition of freedom via coercion and coercion via physical violence is inadequate. It would follow that every single human society is unfree.

[Bonniedundee]

Alright. But not all land has the same quality, right? It's quite probable that no-one would want to use the last unused bit of land the community has. Thus, the state of there not being enough land might never be reached, no matter how little land the community has.It would be a subjective thing how much is enough, and it is not just land, it is different types of land, resources etc.

Sorry, but I prefer modern to "human scale" technology.I thought you were a libertarian socialist?

Yes, and according to me, computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printers, fish in landlocked countries, tea, coal, oil, etc. etc. cannot. So I'd say Ralph Borsodi is at best a wishful thinker.He was a very influencial author and economist, you may disagree with him, but please lets not go down the "loren road" of just writing him off as crank because of that.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/loomis_borsodi_bio.html

If they address my objection somewhere, you're welcome to point me towards that particular passage or chapter (or better yet, put it in your words).Your objections are general, the whole point of these texts was to counter the "cult of bigness", the worship of centralisation.

The former yes, the latter no. But as I pointed out a zillion times already, Kropotkin lived a hundred years ago in a feudal society.First he lived in the West when he wrote his major works and they were as much aimed to Westen authors as Russian. Secondly the spread of technology has made decentralism even easier not harder.

Will you please stop repeating this mantra and address the question of how computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc. (which certainly form a pretty large bulk of today's production) are going to be made "locally"?I'm not an expert in such things, and don't really wish to have long conversations on building computers when we began on anarcho-capitalism.

I myself am only just beginning to read these things, perhaps when I'm better able to argue such things in my own words it would be more appropriate.

I must say your attitude is not one I'd expect from a libertarian socialist.

What kind of libertarian socialist are you, a libertarian Marxist?
Yes, of course it could also be applied to the protection of person, that's why your definition of freedom via coercion and coercion via physical violence is inadequate. It would follow that every single human society is unfree.Defence is not coercion so your example fails. Are you saying that it is wrong to defend myself?

[Preno]

Alright. But not all land has the same quality, right? It's quite probable that no-one would want to use the last unused bit of land the community has. Thus, the state of there not being enough land might never be reached, no matter how little land the community has.It would be a subjective thing how much is enough, and it is not just land, it is different types of land, resources etc.That's what you said in the post before. How does that answer my point?
I thought you were a libertarian socialist?Yeah, so? If libertarian socialism is against modern technology (which I don't think it is), then I suppose I'm not a libertarian socialist. Tbh, I don't particularly care.
He was a very influencial author and economist, you may disagree with him, but please lets not go down the "loren road" of just writing him off as crank because of that.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/loomis_borsodi_bio.html

Your objections are general, the whole point of these texts was to counter the "cult of bigness", the worship of centralisation.My objections are not too general. I asked how you're going to make computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printers, fish in landlocked countries, tea, coal, oil, etc. etc. So far you haven't provided any sort of answer for this question. Please do so now or admit that you have no answer.
I'm not an expert in such things, and don't really wish to have long conversations on building computers when we began on anarcho-capitalism.Why "long conversations"? Simply tell me how computers or cars can be built "locally"?
Yes, of course it could also be applied to the protection of person, that's why your definition of freedom via coercion and coercion via physical violence is inadequate. It would follow that every single human society is unfree.Defence is not coercion so your example fails.Of course it is not! That's why your definition fails. You defined coercion so as to include self-defence. Therefore, your definition is inadequate.

[Bonniedundee]

That's what you said in the post before. How does that answer my point?
I have already answered the point, the local community would have to choose how much is enough.

Yeah, so? If libertarian socialism is against modern technology (which I don't think it is), then I suppose I'm not a libertarian socialist. Tbh, I don't particularly care.Who said anything about against technology? Being against centralised technology is not being against technology?
My objections are not too general. I asked how you're going to make computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printers, fish in landlocked countries, tea, coal, oil, etc. etc. So far you haven't provided any sort of answer for this question. Please do so now or admit that you have no answer.
Of course I have no answer, I'm not an expert on the technicalities of producing these things, for your claim to have truth you'd have to show how they can't though, please show this?

Why "long conversations"? Simply tell me how computers or cars can be built "locally"?
Ditto, why could they not be? I don't know how a computer is made, others have claimed these things can be made local, I can't know everything.

Do you know how a computer is made?
Of course it is not! That's why your definition fails. You defined coercion so as to include self-defence. Therefore, your definition is inadequate.
I never defined it as this.

[Preno]

I have already answered the point, the local community would have to choose how much is enough.Well, then we have two different meanings of "enough", first, whatever the community says is enough, second, the one where there is not "enough land" if people are renting and there is no free land in the community. Which of these were you using when you said that there is enough land for everybody today?Who said anything about against technology? Being against centralised technology is not being against technology?No, being against all non-local production is being against modern technology.
Of course I have no answer, I'm not an expert on the technicalities of producing these things, for your claim to have truth you'd have to show how they can't though, please show this?

Ditto, why could they not be? I don't know how a computer is made, others have claimed these things can be made local, I can't know everything.

Do you know how a computer is made?That's excuse doesn't work, since I'm not asking you about the specifics of computer production but about the general process of computer production in your society. (And if you don't want to talk about computer, we can talk about cars). So, I take it that you want every community to build their own computers and cars, right?

[Edit]Also, curiously enough, you have completely ignored my points about products that simply cannot be made locally, like climate-specific plants/fruits, or fish.

Plus, you still haven't explained the supposed "evils" of non-local production and you haven't explained why a community should have the exclusive right to use a natural resource like ore or oil simply because it happens to be located on its land. In short, you are selectively ignoring most of my points.
Of course it is not! That's why your definition fails. You defined coercion so as to include self-defence. Therefore, your definition is inadequate.I never defined it as this.True, you used more vague terms. So, then, what do you mean by coercion? I assume self-defense means defense against a direct physical attack or threat thereof?

[J-D]

It's curious to see somebody arguing on a Web discussion board that everything can be produced locally. How could you ever produce a Web discussion board locally? Impossible.

Even if it's possible to produce two thirds, or three quarters, or four fifths of everything locally, that still leaves a third, or a quarter, or a fifth which it is not possible to produce locally.

[Bonniedundee]

Well, then we have two different meanings of "enough", first, whatever the community says is enough, second, the one where there is not "enough land" if people are renting and there is no free land in the community. Which of these were you using when you said that there is enough land for everybody today?The one where the community decides.

No, being against all non-local production is being against modern technology.I'm not against all non-local production, just most. It is not against modern technology, I believe most of the stuff that is needed, remebering I'm against consumerism, monotonism work that turns men into machines etc, can be produced by technology that is human scale.

That's excuse doesn't work, since I'm not asking you about the specifics of computer production but about the general process of computer production in your society. (And if you don't want to talk about computer, we can talk about cars). So, I take it that you want every community to build their own computers and cars, right?

[QUOTE][Edit]Also, curiously enough, you have completely ignored my points about products that simply cannot be made locally, like climate-specific plants/fruits, or fish.They can import luxuries, if they really want them, it would be far more expensive than now, as there would no centralising coercion.
Plus, you still haven't explained the supposed "evils" of non-local production and you haven't explained why a community should have the exclusive right to use a natural resource like ore or oil simply because it happens to be located on its land. In short, you are selectively ignoring most of my points.
Yes because we are drifting far of topic from the original discussion on ancapism.
The benefits are that there would be no coercion, there would be far less alienation, the workers would control their own workplaces and could engage in actually creative and fulfilling work, there would be a far higher sense of community and far more freedom. Basically just all the benefits proclaimed by socialists since the early 19th century.

True, you used more vague terms. So, then, what do you mean by coercion? I assume self-defense means defense against a direct physical attack or threat thereof?Obviously.

[Mr Carcer]

To quote G. K. Chesterton: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

[Bonniedundee]

To quote G. K. Chesterton: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."Chesterton, a trully wise man and a real decentralist.

[RationalMaterialist]

Wait a minute... I ain't american...

'Wingers'.. Left/Right... Red/Blue... it is all pretty arbitrary IMO.

I was born in the UK, and now an Ex-Pat living in Gran Canaria (A spanish island off the west coast of Africa). So, I cannot comment on the US Democrats and Rebublicans... instead, we had conservatives and Labour (Or 'new labour' if you prefer... please don't ask me what happened to the old one... too many post-election flip/flops perhaps).

Labour is supposed to lean strongly to the left, Conservative to the right... religion hardly enters into any of it - it isn't such a large political potato in the UK.

Well, theres the theory... but thats ALL it is. Theory!


Let me tell you a little story...

Once upon a time we were a kingdom. We had a VERY well defined ruling class... The nobility. And whenever the people were sufficiently miffed they would storm some estate or other and cut off a noblemans head. Hardly democracy... but it did keep the nobility on their toes for much of the time.

An uneasy balance was reached between the greed of the nobility and the tolerance of the common man.

Then one day, tired of having their relatives throats cut, the monarchy proposed a whole new way of doing things. It was great, it was powerful, they could keep control... and nobody need loose their head.

Parliment was constructed and well-to-do businessmen and lesser nobles were divided into two groups. These two groups would, it was proposed, remain diametrically opposed on EVERY possible argument, even the common sense ones... And thus the people would always appear to have choice.

Because of this it has been a very long time since any of our ruling classes were beheaded.


Of course, over time the monarchy slowly lost power and influence as the big businesses seized the hearts and wallets of the politicians on both sides of the house. The Nobility kept moderate control through the house of lords pretty much ignored and kept out of the public view - Mainly because they all remember their families dark days of angry torch-carrying mobs y'see.

And so it is to this day. Two parties... vigourously opposed and irreconcilable. Neither making a difference... Neither holding the stick of power. All mouthpieces for the national businesses. The party names... the Left/Right designations... the Blue/Red colour schemes... all pretty illusory.


Yook and Zook policies

If you remember your Dr. Seuss then you may view our party system as the Yooks and the Zooks. Although, at LEAST the Yooks and the Zooks had pretty well defined views... I mean, at least you knew what a Zook stood for! Our two party system could reverse their positions, provided that both pretty much maintain fervent disagreement with the other. And they did... regularly.

Even the staunchest most radical/rabid Zook proponent, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, former Zook Prime Minister... One day upped sticks and joined the Yooks. This kinda spoiled the symmetry a little... but everyone quickly got used to it. After all, politicians flip-flop and u-turn all of the time, particularly once elected... So what if the most fervent Zook changes her entire philosophy overnight. The system still has meaning, doesn't it?

So, we cast our votes... And whichever party comes to power for the next term... well, they are then the proud holders of a 4-year lease of dictatorship. And dictatorship is what it is... you vote for the man/party... then he goes and acts upon his own initiative for the entire term. And so what if he U-turns all of the pre-election promises... We all blame the man... not the party (They often blame their man too)... and certainly not the system (After all, what would the world be without democracy). In all likelihood that man probably won't be standing next term... so all is well : ) Democracy rolls on.

THAT, in my view, is the great hall of mirrors that is democracy.


Democracy in the US?

So... we didn't have it in the UK... and I dare say you don't have it in the US either. You may choose which of the political classes becomes the mouthpiece of the corporations for the next term of office... sure. But thats hardly the same is it.

Is the US really much different ?

I'm aware that in the US many believe that the president has ultimate power and that everyone bows to his word. But NO country this large puts all of their power in one man. To believe so is naieve.

Many also believe that any boy can grow up to be president... and that MAY be even true. Provided, of course, that he demonstrates that he knows how to play the game on the way up... greases the palms of industry and his fellow politicians... shows that he knows that even presidents have their place in a much larger and more important machinery. But then, no well-meaning individual will make it... and if they do, if they fool the checks and balances... then those sordid deals will be used to remove them from office as soon as they show the first signs of honesty.


So, please, stand up and point at your democracy! Tell me the wondrous ways it serves the public interest... tell me how you are not electing pre-chosen candidates to a fresh term of dictatorship. Show me something. Because from where I'm standing 'Democracy' is just a word and nothing more. The elected are simply the mouthpieces of the affluent - and the affluent tend not to change between terms of office.

And 'wings'/'wingers' ... well, just words. Just words to help support those largely artificial polarities that keep the system ticking and ensure that the public feel that there is always choice. A peaceful... sheeplike... electoral... choice.

But there again, maybe I'm just a helpless cynic ; ) After all... there MUST be something wrong with someone who sees little real difference between democracy and dictatorship... other than knowing who to nail to the wall when the time comes.


-Gary

[Preno]

Well, then we have two different meanings of "enough", first, whatever the community says is enough, second, the one where there is not "enough land" if people are renting and there is no free land in the community. Which of these were you using when you said that there is enough land for everybody today?The one where the community decides.So in effect, when you said "there is enough land for everyone", you meant "every community will decide that there is enough land for all of its members". What makes you think that?
I'm not against all non-local production, just most. It is not against modern technology, I believe most of the stuff that is needed, remebering I'm against consumerism, monotonism work that turns men into machines etc, can be produced by technology that is human scale.

They can import luxuries, if they really want them, it would be far more expensive than now, as there would no centralising coercion.Just make up your mind already. Are you against the production of computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printers, fish in landlocked countries, tea, coal, oil, etc. - as you originally implied you were - or not? If yes, do you accept that they cannot be made "locally" and thus would - according to you - need "centralized coercion"?
The benefits are that there would be no coercion, there would be far less alienation, the workers would control their own workplaces and could engage in actually creative and fulfilling work, there would be a far higher sense of community and far more freedom. Basically just all the benefits proclaimed by socialists since the early 19th century.But what does that have to do with local or non-local production? :huh:
True, you used more vague terms. So, then, what do you mean by coercion? I assume self-defense means defense against a direct physical attack or threat thereof?Obviously.In that case, you just said that capitalists do not coerce anyone (unless they literally point a gun to their head).

[RationalMaterialist]

Sorry, I jumped in here thinking we were talking about 'wingers' and their meaning - or lack thereof. Just trying to find my feet in this alternative argument.


@Euro_Agnostic:

As regards local production... how large is a community?

If the European Union tomorrow decided to stop imports and produce 95% of consumer goods locally I'm sure they have the scale and diversity to do so pretty effectively. Indeed, it would be far more efficient.

For example, for solving the spiralling problems of national healthcare each country could produce equipment at cost and pool them. Beds from Sweden, Heart machines from Germany, etc... all sold *at cost* to member states with the surplus turned over to the global market at very highly competetive rates.

Same with medicines. Ignoring pharm. patentry would allow an isolationist europe (having largely opted out of the global market) to produce medicines at cost for distribution between its member states and pass its surpluses to developing nations such as africa and the middle east... This would cut costs at home dramatically, make possible a high standard of national healthcare, and at the same time build strong partnerships with developing nations with large untapped resources.

But then doesn't it take administrative centralisation to avoid each state inefficiently attempting to be its own entirely self-sufficient group? After all, surely it is more efficient (And promotes greater stability) if each neighbour were strongly dependent on each other... if each concentrated on that which their particular resources lent themselves to. I really cannot see any individual member state being adequately self-sufficient... think of poor luxemburg... landlocked, few resources, etc. No, the self-sufficient community poses too many difficulties... but a system of specialised communities pulling together in a largely interdependent communistic system, with member distribution and exporting secondarily its surpluses to the global market according to need in order to bring in fresh developing communities with fresh resources.... well, I do see how that could work.

Vehicles produced in non-farming countries being available at cost to other countries who can then concentrate on strengthening their farming resources we end up with very large interdependency. At least... you do if you require each community to remain efficient and somewhat specialised.


Of course, America... being such a huge importer would have to either toe the line or label us the new soviet union... almost certainly demonize us... and quite possibly drop us into another cold (or not so cold) war.


Is this what you mean by localised production? A kind of commune of sommunes on a large scale between states with, between them, the diversity of resources to manage such a scheme ? I still see centralisation as a logistical requirement. A centralised trade administration if nothing else... and even this is inherrently political.


Or do you envisage far smaller self-sufficient communities. Independent townships? I fear that most smaller communities would not have the variety of resources to survive on their own... it would be a return to subsistence farming and a distinct lack of modern equipment. Tilling the earth for a meal.

The smaller the communities the more they become interdependant. The more they interdepend the more the need for some centralisation to optimise production and distribution. Is this not the case? The smallest community... perhaps a household or street or even township... really cannot survive such a scenario, so I assume we are talking on the scale of states.

As for your apparent environmentalist issues. I read something interesting recently about communal/centralised land ownership and its negative effect on environmentalism - it appears that private or community ownership works far better. Chuck Olsen put it best ...
http://www.charlesolson.com/lorax93.htm
... and reminded me how poignant and political much of Dr Seuss' nonsense actually is.


-Gary

[Bonniedundee]

So in effect, when you said "there is enough land for everyone", you meant "every community will decide that there is enough land for all of its members". What makes you think that?In a way yes, and this is just what I recommend, I can't force themto do this of course, just like you cannot force your more centralised socialist bodies to do what you want.

Just make up your mind already. Are you against the production of computers, planes, cars, anything made using artificial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, printers, fish in landlocked countries, tea, coal, oil, etc. - as you originally implied you were - or not? If yes, do you accept that they cannot be made "locally" and thus would - according to you - need "centralized coercion"?I'm not against them as much as I think that non-local production would automatically drop off with the removal of the state, that is all.

As for all this technology I believe most can be made locally, but I'm not expert, I have just read from the.

But what does that have to do with local or non-local production?Because most non-local production takes coercion and coercion destroys this.

In that case, you just said that capitalists do not coerce anyone (unless they literally point a gun to their head).That is what I believe, to create capitalists themselves there is coercion like this going on some where. Capitalists need the state, the state gets its revenues like this.

[Bonniedundee]

As regards local production... how large is a community?I'm not sure really, the actual community would probably be like a large village or a few city blocks but I believe things will be produced for it from at least 30 miles around.

I was more saying that coercion ie the state makes most non-local production possible, not that we should force local production.

For example, for solving the spiralling problems of national healthcare each country could produce equipment at cost and pool them. Beds from Sweden, Heart machines from Germany, etc... all sold *at cost* to member states with the surplus turned over to the global market at very highly competetive rates.

Same with medicines. Ignoring pharm. patentry would allow an isolationist europe (having largely opted out of the global market) to produce medicines at cost for distribution between its member states and pass its surpluses to developing nations such as africa and the middle east... This would cut costs at home dramatically, make possible a high standard of national healthcare, and at the same time build strong partnerships with developing nations with large untapped resources.

But then doesn't it take administrative centralisation to avoid each state inefficiently attempting to be its own entirely self-sufficient group? After all, surely it is more efficient (And promotes greater stability) if each neighbour were strongly dependent on each other... if each concentrated on that which their particular resources lent themselves to. I really cannot see any individual member state being adequately self-sufficient... think of poor luxemburg... landlocked, few resources, etc. No, the self-sufficient community poses too many difficulties... but a system of specialised communities pulling together in a largely interdependent communistic system, with member distribution and exporting secondarily its surpluses to the global market according to need in order to bring in fresh developing communities with fresh resources.... well, I do see how that could work.Well I was thinking of far, far smaller local communities than these. Again this is just my believe of what a stateless economy would be like more than wanting to force it on people, even if I think it is very advantageous.

Or do you envisage far smaller self-sufficient communities. Independent townships? I fear that most smaller communities would not have the variety of resources to survive on their own... it would be a return to subsistence farming and a distinct lack of modern equipment. Tilling the earth for a meal.Yes this is what I was talking about. I think that most important technology can be produced on the "human scale", so while we certainly wouldn't have the consumerism we have today, we'd have what need, probably more of it, than today.

The smaller the communities the more they become interdependant. The more they interdepend the more the need for some centralisation to optimise production and distribution. Is this not the case? There would likely be much interdependence, but there is no need for centralisation, it can be done by federation.

As for your apparent environmentalist issues. I read something interesting recently about communal/centralised land ownership and its negative effect on environmentalism - it appears that private or community ownership works far better. Chuck Olsen put it best ...
I certainly don't recommend centralised land ownership, I recommend private or local community ownership.

[Preno]

So in effect, when you said "there is enough land for everyone", you meant "every community will decide that there is enough land for all of its members". What makes you think that?In a way yes, and this is just what I recommend, I can't force themto do this of course, just like you cannot force your more centralised socialist bodies to do what you want.Well, I don't see what makes you believe this. Surely in many places the density of population is such that there simply will not be "enough land" for everyone?
As for all this technology I believe most can be made locally, but I'm not expert, I have just read from the.No, every community cannot have its own car factory, computer factory, airplane factory, etc. I believe that many of your other suggestions are mistaken, but this is just pure absurdity.
Because most non-local production takes coercion and coercion destroys this.You've repeated this assertion a couple of times, but I don't remember seeing any argument in favour of it. Can you provide it now?
In that case, you just said that capitalists do not coerce anyone (unless they literally point a gun to their head).That is what I believe, to create capitalists themselves there is coercion like this going on some where. Capitalists need the state, the state gets its revenues like this.[/QUOTE]But the problem is still that if you can only use violence in response to a direct physical attack, then property rights are not possible. If person A says X is his and so does person B, then neither of them has physically attacked the other, thus, neither of them can use violence without it counting as coercion. Thus, it follows that neither of them can be prevented from using X, in other words, it follows that everybody has the right to use every object. Which I don't think is what you want, or is it?

Also, let me ask one more time - what makes you think that a community should have the absolute right to use any natural resources on its land, simply because they happen to be on its land? That sounds completely unfair to me.

[Derrick Lang]

I'm in a debate on another board and thought it would be interesting to pose the same question here.

What is the "right wing" to you?
What is the "left wing" to you?

It may be important to also state your frame of reference. American, Ex-pat, non-American, etc. Since the line of "center" can vary wildly. The discussion on the other board was about the extremes - the wingers, but interestingly several people did not feel there was a difference between Right and Right Wing.

Your thoughts and opinions?

I haven't read through the entire thread, but if no one else said it: In America, there is no true left or right-wing. We are some weird amalgam of socially conservative, consumerist, religious, corposocialism. I don't know what the hell to call this country. Bush is seen as a conservative and that is funny.

A left-winger, a right-winger, for reality we would have to look to Europe and follow their identification. Right-wingers are usually far beyond conservatism (Neo-Nazi, ethnosocialism, anarchocapitalism, reactionary(ism), fascism, racial supremecy, state ownership of means of production for the state, nationalism) and lefties the next stop beyond liberals (socialism, communism, left-anarchism, some forms of communitarianism, state ownership of the means of production in the name of society). Honestly, it is all touch and go. It's like pornography, I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.

[Preno]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but if no one else said it: In America, there is no true left or right-wing. We are some weird amalgam of socially conservative, consumerist, religious, corposocialism. I don't know what the hell to call this country. Bush is seen as a conservative and that is funny.

A left-winger, a right-winger, for reality we would have to look to Europe and follow their identification. Right-wingers are usually far beyond conservatism (Neo-Nazi, ethnosocialism, anarchocapitalism, reactionary(ism), fascism, racial supremecy, state ownership of means of production for the state, nationalism) and lefties the next stop beyond liberals (socialism, communism, left-anarchism, some forms of communitarianism, state ownership of the means of production in the name of society). Honestly, it is all touch and go. It's like pornography, I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.It is true that there are right-wingers that are, as you say, 'beyond conservatism' in Europe, but the word primarily refers to (at least here in the Czech Rep.) supporters of an unrestrained (or only slightly restrained) free markets. Which I why I always find it funny when libertarians insist that they are not right-wingers - in here, they would be considered precisely as prototypical right-wingers.

[AthenaAwakened]

What is a "winger" to you?

A Red Sox fan who purposely sits in the Yankee fans section at a ballgame.

[RationalMaterialist]

Just noticed something...
but interestingly several people did not feel there was a difference between Right and Right Wing.
LOL. Gee, I wonder why ; )


@Euro_Agnostic

Regarding your smaller communities... I'm sensing here a nostalgic return to quieter times. Subsistence farming and woollen clothing. Such small communities would, as you admit, have just have to abandon much of the current consumer goods (Which I agree would not be SUCH a bad thing all told) ... but would also, and by the same token, have to abandon a vast array of medicines, treatments and diagnosis machinery. Similarly, we would abandon the exploration of space and the quantum world... Essentially, taking the decision to become fatalist.

Do you consider this an acceptable loss ? Are you suggesting we retreat and draw a line under human understanding ? Or do you see such grand ventures as positive and worth maintaining. If so, how do you propose that small autonomous communities proceed without, at least, administrative centralisation.

Sorry, not an attack - I'm just pretty sure I'm missing something here.

If a community is 'almost' self sufficient then I can see some possible merit in what you're saying about coercion. However, if each community was a specialised producer then surely we have not coercion but interdependency which is a great deal healthier on many fronts. This is not a bad thing for stability at all as I see it. If we were all greatly interdependent then conflicts and intolerances between communities would be considerably less (although this is just an opinion) ... surely this would negate both the problem of coercion and the questionable ability of each community to produce everything it requires. After all, with 100 small self-sufficient communities... well... at some point resource availability or depletion is going to cause a great deal of conflict. We did once have subsistence farming communities and low consumerism... the result was a very uneven (have/have not) balance of natural resources and a great deal of pushing and shoving.

Finally, some of the views you have expressed indicate that you are somewhat environmentalist. If so could you explain why multiple local community factories (one per item per community say) would not waste a great deal more resources (Land, Raw Material, Energy) than a centralised production ? It seems to me that the latter is likely far more efficient in terms of resource consumption and land useage.


As for the wingers

I still think the whole 'wingers' thing is for the most part illusory. Any two competing systems will work... and, indeed, the US definitions of Left and Right wing do NOT always appear in many other 2-party democracies. I'd say that this makes it less of a fundamental truth and more of a convenient arrangement. There are more than 2 forms of economic governance... yet democratic countries tend to fall back to two arbitrary and diametrically opposed systems.

The only things these systems tend to share is their