OwlFancier posted:

I don't think I'd characterise it as fascism because fascists tend to be overt about using force by any means to achieve an end they believe to be just.

Ancaps appear to believe that, if left to its own devices, the free market will create fascism for them. While not really understanding it to be fascism.

They're like if fascists were incredibly lazy and also were afraid of being fascists.

Goon Danton posted:

Part of the problem is that Mad Max: Fury Road came out and did everything we tried to do with Valhalla DRO, and it was

Keeshhound posted:

I guess, kind of; except that they're approaching the blending of market and government from the opposite direction. Most ancaps seem to balk at the idea of centralized authority, too; that's kind of essential to actual fascist thought. And they'd probably be less than impressed by the trade protectionism.

Lightning Lord posted:

I liked the guy on the original subreddit the Greek Encounter was posted on who pointed out that continental Europeans have no reference point for the American libertarian tradition, so the anarchists legit thought he was an unvarnished fascist trying to pull a fast one on them instead of a dewy-eyed idiot adherent of a half-assed broken telephone philosophy. Hilarious

quote:

And he asked me if I thought people were unequal. And I told him yes. And that not everyone would have equal rights. I said everyone has the right to own property and not be done aggression against. But that not everyone had to be treated equally by the owners. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that would not happen in a free market, but yes property owners could be racist if they wanted to. They had to respect property.

OwlFancier posted:

I don't think I'd characterise it as fascism because fascists tend to be overt about using force by any means to achieve an end they believe to be just.

Ancaps appear to believe that, if left to its own devices, the free market will create fascism for them. While not really understanding it to be fascism.

They're like if fascists were incredibly lazy and also were afraid of being fascists.

Crabtree posted:

What they specifically want is to be made nobility where their value is unquestioned and respected, but there's no great authority really holding them down in their own little fiefdom. There's a king somewhere and there is possible taxes he'd like, but he isn't here right now so who gives a poo poo.

OwlFancier posted:

Ancaps appear to believe that, if left to its own devices, the free market will create fascism for them.

Ocrassus posted:

What is ownership? Like specifically, what makes an item, piece of land, whatever, belong to you? Does it take on additional properties? What makes it yours in a de facto sense?

Ocrassus posted:

Question for libertarians:

What is ownership? Like specifically, what makes an item, piece of land, whatever, belong to you? Does it take on additional properties? What makes it yours in a de facto sense?

Inquiring minds want to know.

White Coke posted:

Basically they just say that everything they own now is legally theirs. If some indigenous people want to claim it they need to have the appropriate paperwork proving an unbroken chain of possession until it was unlawfully stolen, never mind the fact that it was usually the government doing the stealing. There's usually some mention of homesteading/working the land (putting your dick in it) as being the basis of ownership, but libertarianism is all about sustaining the status quo when it suits the libertarian in question.

Ocrassus posted:

Lockean proviso. A lot of (atheistic) libertarians tend to ignore the fact that that is based heavily on god affording man dominion of the earth though for the purpose of working it, and so the 'dominion' transfers through the work. Throw that out the window and you lose any sense of 'objective' ownership from locke's theory.

My thinking is that the only reason you even have property in the first place is because a plurality of everybody else who could challenge that claim agrees with you. Because of that mutual agreement they won't steal poo poo from you and will even punish people who break that contract. This means that property exists by virtue of permission of the society you live in (in the case of democracy, that is everyone else). Taxation is not society taking your wealth, it is a reciprocal arrangement where you are allowed to have stuff in exchange for some of the surplus value you create be appropriated for means decided on by society.

Disinterested posted:

Libertarians don't in general disagree with the second point if you look at how they handle issues like abandonment of property e.g. abandoning property without giving notice is not abandonment it's absenteeism. Without recognising that element everyone believes you can be an adverse possessor.

Ocrassus posted:

Well too often do I hear screeches of taxation is theft these days. A little more often since the orange one was elected..

Disinterested posted:

'Property is a social construct' =/= 'any use of property approved of by the majority is moral'.

Ocrassus posted:

Beefing with the use cases of property approved by majority already concedes the point though. There are certainly plenty of ways taxation can be used by a government or a society immorally, but that still concedes that taxation isn't inherently immoral.

You can bellyache about taxation in a democracy and try to work through the law to change it. That is what those systems are in place for.

Disinterested posted:

'Taxation is theft' is a motto but it doesn't reflect a totally absolute belief on the part of all libertarians. The issue for them (funnily enough) is consent, or else the agent.

divabot posted:

imagine the consent issues if you told the libertarian that the child is a tax collector

Ocrassus posted:

Question for libertarians:

What is ownership? Like specifically, what makes an item, piece of land, whatever, belong to you? Does it take on additional properties? What makes it yours in a de facto sense?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Golbez posted:

Golbez posted:

The purest ancap answer: It's what you mix your labor with. If I claim land and plant crops, or build a home, or dig a mine, that land is mine. I can only claim that which 1) I have homesteaded by mixing labor with, 2) The land required for the above [buffer zones, fallow fields, etc], and 3) land that I have justly obtained from others who at some point homesteaded or justly acquired.

Some would say "that which you can defend," and I even tried that on a few times, saying "obviously you can't just claim the whole continent because the cost of defense would go up exponentially". And in fact, some would say that's kind of the definition of private wilderness parkland - while you haven't necessarily labored to keep it pristine, you labor by controlling access and preventing people from despoiling it. (Of course this really opens a can of worms with the "controlling access means ownership" bit...)

The more reasonable libertarian answer I came up with a few years in: Community standards, obviously, have a place, because otherwise it's a matter of who fires their shotgun first. Like the buffer land - who decides how much is enough? Does mowing my lawn count as "mixing labor"? And who's to say that's YOUR land? I have a document too! Who knows which is forged and who cares? So we had some kind of central repository of property ownership information. And every community is different. Some will be fine with you claiming ten acres for your house, some won't want you pulling more than a few feet of buffer space between houses.

Anticheese posted:

Controlling access can mean ownership. Ask anyone in libertopia after their castle is besieged and utilities are cut off.

QuarkJets posted:

I'm the implication of never being able to leave your property lest it become homesteaded by someone else

QuarkJets posted:

I'm the implication of never being able to leave your property lest it become homesteaded by someone else

QuarkJets posted:

I'm the implication of never being able to leave your property lest it become homesteaded by someone else

Disinterested posted:

That is not an underlying implication.

QuarkJets posted:

It is in the ancap version of "we don't need no stinkin guvment" libertarianism

OwlFancier posted:

In the absence of a de-facto state there is no concrete and enforceable registry of property ownership, this isn't necessarily a problem for anarcho-communists because they would argue that you shouldn't be owning things of significance anyway, but for a philosophy built on the idea of owning property, it rather does present a problem whereby if you aren't actively patrolling your land with a rifle 24/7 someone might come along and stake a claim to it and there's nothing you can do about it.

Property and ownership thereof is a somewhat farcical concept without living in a state or commanding an army.

Disinterested posted:

I agree these are problems de facto to some degree but cooperative communities of people who recognise one another's rights are a fundamental cornerstone of any libertarian ideology.

WillyTheNewGuy posted:

If I genetically engineered a virus would it be my property? If someone was to then become infected without a receipt proving they paid for it, can I request my DRO charge the infected with theft?