BonnieDundee

They all seem inconclusive.
That is the American meaning. Outside the internet and America it doesn't necessarily have that meaning, globally it is as often take to be leftwing.

I don't think classical liberals are the same as modern, American style libertarians. Classical liberalism is a nuanced and diverse movement which has influenced most modern ideologies. But that is not what I was saying.

I don't see how.

What I'm looking for is an iron-clad argument from you why your version of lockean property rights, the Nozick one, is necessarily, always and in all contexts and situations, the route to liberty.

Personally I don't define economic liberty in terms of a version of property rights like that. I define it in terms of the real autonomy and freedom an individual has over his creative activity. And if local convetion can increase this by making the local rules of property conform to a less "sticky"(ie a kind of ownership which allows less absentee ownership.) version of property then I have no problem with this.

__________________
"In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument..."
Milton Friedman

People do not argue with the teachings of Henry George they simply do not know it.... He who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.
Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

Leopold Kohr.

Smidgey

Then I don't think I will be able to convince you. But as I said, society should be based upon civic rights out of utility anyway.

Maybe I am just ignorant, but I have never actually come across this left-wing meaning that you talk of. Furthermore, I have never heard the term libertarianism (above) described as the American type. When I learned about libertarianism at university two years ago, it was the above definition that was given, nothing was ever said about any left-wing ideology (except when we contrasted Nozick with Rawls). We did speak of left-libertarianism, but it was specifically named "left-libertarianism", whereas the libertarianism above was described as just "libertarianism". I have never seen is described in any left-wing terms except as "left-libertarianism".

You're claim that absentee ownership affects the liberties of others can be reversed to say that making absentee ownership illegal infringes upon the liberties of those that wish to be absentee owners.

I gave Nozick's one already, which you dismissed on the lines that there were many competing theories of property - which I completely accepted and made clear that I was arguing on utilitarian grounds.

You seem to be trying to shift the discussion onto something that we were not really talking about. Furthermore, just because there are many theories of property rights/ownership doesn't mean that this particular one is false or any less or more utilitarian than another.

By rights in this sentence, do you mean natural or legal ones? Because as I said in my previous post, it is really irrelevant which (which Tito also made clear when he argued for utilitarian/legal rights as opposed to natural ones).

Then I might just as well ask, as you have done, what justifies this view over another?

However, I have absolutely no disagreement with this, however, I think that can be achieved within a Lockean/Nozickian view of property

I might agree with you that absentee ownership does cause problems in some cases, but certainly not in all (I know this is not what you said). The real question is whether or not the rates of absentee ownership that we often see today (and in the past) came about by a just theory of property? I would obviously answer no.

__________________
Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.

When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.

-Frederic Bastiat

tito

Conceded, my mistake. The President still held his reigns until he was convinced into giving emergency powers.

__________________
For life, Liberty and Prosperity
http://lpuk.org/

BonnieDundee

Well I have made it a habit of exploring many different versians of libertarian and decentralist thoguht, so I certainly have come across it. The term was invented by anarcho-communists in I believe the 1840s and was used frequently by anarchists right up until today. The American kind did not use it until the 1960s. Check out anarchist history.

This book was written by George Woodcock in early 60s and uses the term Anarchism(as in old fashioned leftwing anarchism.) and libertarianism as synonyms.

Amazon.com: Anarchism: A history of libertarian...
I don't really mind different groups using the word but I don't like one group trying to exclusively claim it, I particularly don't want to be considered a Freiedmanite or Rothbardian in all respects when I use the term.


It would quite simple to work out that the first is alot worse because the second equalises things while the first does not. The second means no one can have more land than they can personally use(by absentee ownership it is only immoavable property I'm interested in.) and therefore all should be able to have the land they can personally use. Whereas in the first system some might be free to have more land while others have less than they can personally use.


You didn't explain Nozick's one, I'm not sure of its contents and you certainly did not prove its eternal utilitarian benefits. I still maintain no theory or kind of property is always the best.


He didn't really make it clear, it said he didn't believe in natural rights but then made it clear there is only one kind of right system which is fine with justice and human nature, which is much the same thing. What I'm looking for is a decent argument on whatever grounds that one particularly system of property is always better and if it is utilitarian arguments you have I'd like to hear them.

Because it is grounded in what people really experience and not in abstract things like property rights. It is also based on a view of humanity that they ultimately enjoy freedom and autonomy and can achieve the most with it, something akin to humanist psychology.
I want to know why this is always and eternally so.

__________________
"In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument..."
Milton Friedman

People do not argue with the teachings of Henry George they simply do not know it.... He who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.
Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

Leopold Kohr.