quote:

---

Libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky: “a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”.

---

Is Chomsky correct? Are right wing libertarians sellouts of true libertarianism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Is Chomsky correct? Are right wing libertarians sellouts of true libertarianism?

---

quote:

---

In place of capitalism we want a free socialistic economic system in which the workers and peasants directly control the land and factories, and use these resources to produce for the benefit of all. In place of the State, we want to manage our own affairs through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels. We call this system "anarchism" or "stateless socialism" or "libertarian socialism".

We do not think that the State can be made to help ordinary people. The only language the bosses understand is the language of mass struggle from below. This is the only way to win any gains in the here and now, and definitely the only way to smash the system in the long run. Relying on the State to make the revolution is a recipe for disaster, in every country where a "revolutionary government" got into power the result was a social system at least as oppressive as the one that got overthrown. Russia was not socialist, it was a one-party State in which a Communist Party-bureaucratic elite ran a "State-capitalist" system.

Instead of using the State, we believe that the struggle and the revolution must come about through mass democratic movements of the workers and the poor. In particular, we emphasise the revolutionary potential of trade unions. The trade unions can organise the workers to fight the bosses in the here and now, we all know that. The unions can also provide the vehicle for the workers to take-over, and directly manage, the factories, mines, farms and offices. The role of an organisation such as the Workers Solidarity Federation is not to make the revolution "for" the masses. It is to help to organise and educate the masses to march to freedom in their own name. We are opposed to all forms of oppression and support all everyday struggles to improve the conditions under which we live. We promote the self-activity and revolutionary awareness of the masses.

---

quote:

---

sknguy: The thread title is a bit misleading. Is Chomsky referring to in "ownership of production" the ownership of labor, or is Chomsky referring to material property, as the thread title suggests?

---

It's the contradiction between the two that Chomsky is drawing attention to. If I subscribe to a doctrine that says I can only be "free" if I control my own productive activity, and enter into such activity freely, then how can someone who subscribes to such a doctrine of freedom claim that a society is "free" when some individuals can command (and reap the benefit of) the labour of others by virtue of ownership of the means of production? The ones who are "commanded" are not free. The doctrine falls apart, says Chomsky, in a society, like our own, divided into social classes that have different relations to the means of production (some own and most do not).

Private property is typically used to mean private ownership of anything, including the means of production. Advocates of private property typically don't distinguish between ownership of a multi-billion dollar industry and ownership of a toothbrush. Both sorts of ownership are supposed to be "private" property.

Needless to say, those who critique the concept and practice of private property like to use the term more precisely. A toothbrush is personal property. One's own car could be considered personal property, in most cases, with the caveat that in certain relationships the car could become private property. [i.e., if I use my car in my work, such as a courier might do, then it is considered something different] Obviously, ownership of a company would be considered private property.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Under "socialist libertarianism", the first 500 can owned and work (and become wealthy relative to the second 500) in a company they formed (First 500 Company, Ltd.) but the second 500 could be prohibited (by the first 500) from working for the First 500 Company, Ltd., unless the first 500 decided to make a gift of their savings to some or all of the second 500, right? If this was the case, perhaps more productive worker/owners would tend to work together to the exclusion of less productive worker/owners.

Or, would the first 500 be required to share, 50-50, with the second 500? If so, it would become more complicated if the investment of the first 500 was risky (i.e., they could lose their entire investment). Why would the first 500 save and invest (and risk losing that investment) if the fruits of their efforts, if successful, would have to be shared with the second 500 who would contribute, labor-wise, nothing more than the first 500?

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Sven: Let's say there a community with 1,000 people (they are all individual craftspersons).

---

Has such a society ever existed in any place other than in the imagination of capitalist thought-experiments? Even the early U.S. had a preponderance of indentured labour and, of course, slavery.

quote:

---

... 500 are frugal and save money to buy some large pieces of capital equipment to collectively increase their individual productivity by 300%. 500 are not frugal and spend what they earn.

---

What's really amusing about this particular experiment is that this capital equipment must have fallen off a turnip truck as everyone is, as you say, an individual craftsperson. But where does this turnip truck come from, I wonder?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[QB][/QB]as such a society ever existed in any place other than in the imagination of capitalist thought-experiments? Even the early U.S. had a preponderance of indentured labour and, of course, slavery.

---

The most biting criticism I have ever heard about Chomsky, for example, was that he failed to elaborate a worked out alternative to the policies of the American Empire that he's done such an excellent job of exposing. I don't really agree with this; all he has to show is that U.S. foreign, or domestic, policy benefits elites at the expense of the masses of the people. The rest is up to us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[rant]Without that mobilization, the kind of change that Margaret Thatcher carried out in Britain might be considered in the same breath as what we are discussing here, with her efforts to privatize public housing and make everyone "an owner" in "the ownership" society. [/end rant]

---

And from what I understand, some percentage of labour supporters were sucked in by Thatcher's appeal to ownership. What they didn't count on was that the economy was about to be strangled by Friedmanite monetarism until 1986. She pauperized a nation, and very many lost the mortgages on their homes. The housing fiasco was all a ruse for the real enormous property grabs of British Telecom, railways, water, and electrics. NeoLiberal privatization and deregulation appealed to Thatcher and members of her party whose eye lit up with dollar signs at thoughts of rich commissions from sale of state-owned corporations and crown assets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Is Chomsky correct? Are right wing libertarians sellouts of true libertarianism?

See Libertarian socialism for more information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
It's always confused me, anyway, what exactly privileges state enforcement of property rights as rightful and good over every other form of coercion libertarians hate. If they aren't going to go all the way and be anarchists they're being awfully hypocritical.

---

That seems silly. It's akin to saying something like:

quote:

---

It's always confused me, anyway, what state controls to mandate equality that socialists don't like. If they aren't going to go all the way and be communists they're being awfully hypocritical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

It's always confused me, anyway, what exactly privileges state enforcement of property rights as rightful and good over every other form of coercion libertarians hate.

---

I completely agree, and you've captured the essence of the "libertarian" agenda.

Human rights are inherent to the human being herself - her speech, her conscience, her freedom of movement, her control of her body, her being treated without discrimination, etc. etc. They definitely require state coercion to enforce them.

Property rights, however, are unique: they concern something (property) which is, by definition, completely external to the human being.

How ironic that those who trumpet "liberty" would privilege state enforcement of external possessions over state enforcement of individual dignity and freedom.

ETA: Of course, I'm referring to "libertarians" of the Libertarian Party breed.

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Most anarchists, socialists and communists are on the left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
How ironic that those who trumpet "liberty" would privilege state enforcement of external possessions over state enforcement of individual dignity and freedom.

---

I’m not sure that libertarians “privilege” property rights over all other rights. I’m sure there is a wide variety of opinion among libertarians regarding any hierarch of rights.

Lefties and libertarians largely agree on many of the individual civil liberties—with the exception of property rights. So, naturally, lefties, when looking at libertarians, will place more of a focus on the differences (property rights) than commonalities. That view may lead lefties to think that property rights, necessarily, predominate in the hierarchy of rights valued by libertarians.

A subtler distinction between lefties and libertarians relates to individual civil liberties. Civil liberties are placed, by many lefties, in a hierarch depending on class. For example, I think that you take a pretty “libertarian” view regarding religious matters (and it doesn’t matter what religion is at issue—you have a consistent view of the matter). Many lefties, however, look at religion and classify rights depending on if one religion is “privileged” or not relative to another religion. I think the free speech debate is a good specific example of that. It’s okay to use speech to rake Xians over the coals because Xians are “privileged” but it’s not okay to use the identical speech to rake Muslims over the coals because, relative to Xians, they are “not privileged”.

I’ve worked as a:

■ Newspaper carrier
■ Janitor
■ Painter
■ Radio dispatcher
■ Retail clerk
■ Sunflower roguer (walking field to remove certain plants by hand)
■ Tutor
■ Door-to-door sales
■ Elder caretaker
■ Accountant
■ Lawyer

In none of those jobs have I been an owner of the business. And, in none of those jobs have I felt “oppressed” simply because my labor was being used for the benefit of the owners of property—principally because the jobs benefited me as well.

quote:

---

Our current financial system diverts us from our real problems to ask, "Where is the money going to come from?" This should be the least of our worries. As long as we have vast unmet human needs and idle human and nonhuman resources, and resources which can be diverted from wasteful activities such as the military, finance should never be allowed to stand in the way of doing what must be done. Could anything be more insane than for the human race to die out because we "couldn't afford" to save ourselves? - John Hotson, former economics professor, U. Waterloo, Ontario

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
With regard to the equation labor-for-owners-of-property = "slavery"

In none of those jobs have I been an owner of the business. And, in none of those jobs have I felt “oppressed” simply because my labor was being used for the benefit of the owners of property—principally because the jobs benefited me as well.

I don’t understand the concept of labor-for-owners-of-property = "slavery" (unless it’s actual slavery, it's hyperbole).

---

I, on the other hand, have felt that I was selling the greater part of my life, long before I knew much of anything about Karl Marx.

Millions of people died fighting for one empire or another. Probably only a very small minority "felt" they were being used to advance the interests of their national ruling class.

Millions of oppressed peasants worked and fought for their lords without feeling exploited. (Yes, after many centuries, they did begin to revolt. Eventually the working class, too will revolt, if capitalism survive the impending environmental apocalypse.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I, on the other hand, have felt that I was selling the greater part of my life, long before I knew much of anything about Karl Marx.

Millions of people died fighting for one empire or another. Probably only a very small minority "felt" they were being used to advance the interests of their national ruling class.

Millions of oppressed peasants worked and fought for their lords without feeling exploited. (Yes, after many centuries, they did begin to revolt. Eventually the working class, too will revolt, if capitalism survive the impending environmental apocalypse.)

"I feel exploited" or "I don't feel exploited" really doesn't settle such questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

So why do citizens end up worse off and hungrier in societies where Karl Marx's ideas are put into practice?

---

Just to cite one example: for all its faults, the Soviet Union did manage to feed, house, educate, and provide health care for its people. Not lavishly, no. But it was a vast improvement on the situation before the revolution. And this was in spite of the unfailing efforts of the capitalist world to destroy it, together with the errors and (all too often) appalling actions of its government, as well as several devastating wars fought in its territory.

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Just to cite one example: for all its faults, the Soviet Union did manage to feed, house, educate, and provide health care for its people. Not lavishly, no. But it was a vast improvement on the situation before the revolution. And this was in spite of the unfailing efforts of the capitalist world to destroy it, together with the errors and (all too often) appalling actions of its government, as well as several devastating wars fought in its territory.

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

So why do citizens end up worse off and hungrier in societies where Karl Marx's ideas are put into practice?

---

True syndicalism is democracy art work in an industrial setting. How does a real workers cooperative function? Well that is up to the real workers cooperative so there is no one model fits all sizes.

My favourite example of how that would work vis a vis each other is like the international postal protocols. No single country controls the other countries but the mail flows freely to countries of varying political governments. I can send a letter to the US or China or Cuba or Russia or Saudi Arabia. Some would have you believe that without a hierarchical structure this kind of international cooperation would not be possible but voila it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

I am sure those starving in food lineups or starving in Gulags would have agreed wholeheartedly with you. The hungriest Canadians have WAY more selection and food at food banks than did their entire nation on a daily basis.

---

I made a comparison between pre-revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union. I also mentioned some of the enormous obstacles that country faced. You reply with a comparison between Canada and the USSR. Perhaps I should compare the USSR and Sudan?

Chomsky's point, which you seem to have gloriously misunderstood, is that a doctrine founded on the "freedom" to dispose of my own labour and the wealth generated by that labour as I see fit is a strange justification for social arrangements that condemn the vast majority to the private dictatorships of businesses controlled and/or owned by others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

So why do citizens end up worse off and hungrier in societies where Karl Marx's ideas are put into practice?

---

Because it's not true. According to UNICEF, FAO and verious other sources, 25 years ago there were half a billion chronically hungry people. Today there are 854 million hungry people and anywhere from six to 13 million dying of the capitalist economic longrun each and every year like clockwork. Food riots have occurred in over 30 countries which never break free from developing country status under tutelage by the west. Socialist Cuba practices sustainable agriculture while ten million in chronically hungry thirdworld capitalist countries die agonizing deaths from malnutrition and related diseases every year. Cash crop capitalism is the kiss of death for 30, 000 children world-wide every day.

quote:

---

"World wide capitalism kills more people everyday than Hitler did. And he was crazy. - Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
The hungriest Canadians have WAY more selection and food at food banks than did their entire nation on a daily basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

During laissez-faire capitalism of the 1930's, there were hungry Canadians and Americans riding the rails in search of work. Unsold meat was thrown in the St Lawrence River because Montrealers couldn't afford to buy it. Hungry and desperate Canadians, and many contracted tuberculosis, wrote letters to RB Bennett begging for relief. The Conservative Prime Minister said to them to go looking for work, and they would find it. One Canadian was so overtaken with grief from watching his child starve to death that he shot his family and himself in transit to British Columbia from Eastern Canada. This is was in the land of plenty, two countries with more arable land from one horizon to the other than the Soviet Union or North Korea could ever dream of having. Laissez-faire capitalism was rejected by democratic elections in North America in the 1930's. It just doesn't work.

---

I am not advocating complete laissez-faire capitalism, but a mixed economy. We see from the USSR that complete governmental top-down communist control of everything does not work.

I am more interested in voluntary consumer, farmer's etc. co-ops where the organization is democratic but where control is at a more local level and where the coop members have control rather than the government.

ETA: Another example: If someone here saved up money (and maybe took out a chunk of debt) to build or lease a building to open a bookstore, would that babbler be prohibited from hiring people unless that babbler gave the prospective employees an ownership interest in the store?

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

I am not advocating complete laissez-faire capitalism, but a mixed economy.

---

In the 1930's, I believe Keynes proposed some excellent solutions and compromises toward a mixed market economy. And many of his ideas did shape the most important western economies after the collapse of laissez-faire. JK Galbraith said New Deal socialism had its time and place in the sun.

Leftists like Naomi Klein propose turning back the clock and re-creating the mixed market post-war economic expansion. And she places herself in that group of lefties who describe themselves as realists. If only the capitalist elite class would meet these amicable pragmatists half-way, the world would be a better place, from their perspective. However, very many on the far left are not under this illusion that the new finance capital will knuckle under and return to a 3-6-3 banking model and submit to FDR era regulations, or cede any amount of power of money creation and credit back to the hands of democratically-elected governments as it was from the 1930's to mid-1970's in Canada. Ongoing crises of capitalism since the 1970's are expected to worsen, and I believe we may well see capitalism's fangs bared for all the world to see, once again. Perhaps another terrible war, but we hope not.

The only real solution, in my opinion, will be not to repeat political compromise with capitalists if history repeats itself. And many believe it's happening again with the new Liberal capitalism failing in various experiments where tried, and now deregulated banking teeters on the verge of global meltdown. Workers around the world must be committed to change and ready to demand true democratization of world economies and political power.

quote:

---

We see from the USSR that complete governmental top-down communist control of everything does not work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[QB]If Farmpunk owns his farm, then under "socialist libertarianism", would he be prohibited from hiring anyone to help on his farm unless he gave them an ownership interest in his farm?

ETA: Another example: If someone here saved up money (and maybe took out a chunk of debt) to build or lease a building to open a bookstore, would that babbler be prohibited from hiring people unless that babbler gave the prospective employees an ownership interest in the store?[QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
I'm not a libertarian and don't know much about socialist libertarianism, but it seems to me that this question is, unsurprisingly, decidedly disingenuous. The answer to both is, of course, yes. But you voice the questions in terms of free market entitlement to evoke a sense of illusory injustice. "Chunks of Debt" and "owning a farm" are capitalist concepts. Under socialist libertarianism, I would imagine, there would be an entirely different method of distributing property and resources, so that Farmpunk wouldn't 'own' his land the same way he does now and thus be dependent on its capital yield.

---

I'm not talking about creating a system from scratch. Instead, I'm talking about converting to a "socialist libertarian" (or simply a "socialist") system from what we have today. And, to convert to a "socialist libertarian" system from what we have today, those who own capital, such as Farmpunk, would lose that capital. Ditto the bookstore owner. Ditto anyone with property that is used today as a productive asset.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So far, Farmpunk, no one seems to want to take your farm away from you!

---

Haw haw haw.

I personally ignored your question after I read this far:

quote:

---

If Farmpunk owns his farm, ...

---

That's just a logical fallacy intro (the fallacy of "appealing to mutual babbler love in order to introduce trap").

My mind immediately translated it as:

quote:

---

If Bill Gates owns his own several dozen banks, railways, industrial sectors, and computer leviathins, would he be allowed to hire a few people to help out behind the counter?

---

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Thanks Catchfire for taking the time to give a serious answer.

---

But in practice, you cannot deny that it would result in Farmpunk losing ownership of his farm. And the owners of rabble losing their ownership. (Luckily we would all be owners and able to democratically challenge mod decisions). I am sure Farmpunk would feel just as happy about this as farmers did in the USSR when they were being forced into land nationalization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

But in practice, you cannot deny that it would result in Farmpunk losing ownership of his farm.

---

I don't care. We shouldn't have societies where some own land and buildings and livestock and fields, while others own nothing and must work for them. I have believed that since I was a teenager, and life's experience has confirmed that this is as true as the need for universal health care or education.

quote:

---

And the owners of rabble losing their ownership.

---

That's silly. We're talking about means of production. Rabble produces nothing but headaches.

quote:

---

I am sure Farmpunk would feel just as happy about this as farmers did in the USSR when they were being forced into land nationalization.

---

Or "farmers" (a euphemism for landowners) felt whenever there was land reform (which you choose to call "nationalization", an obscene word not to be utilized on a family discussion board), where they had to now share their ownership with the impoverished labourers who used to do the actual farming for them. Poor Farmpunk. Poor "farmers" who worked hard to inherit their wealth.

quote:

---

Bill Gates in a spurious example who can and should be dealt with by anti-trust laws, strong labour laws, environmental laws as well as a progressive rate of taxation to ensure society benefits from the wealth he creates.

---

"The wealth he creates..." Now I've gone and lost my breakfast. I truly hope you're happy.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
... to convert to a "socialist libertarian" system from what we have today, those who own capital, such as Farmpunk, would lose that capital. Ditto the bookstore owner. Ditto anyone with property that is used today as a productive asset.

---

quote:

---

don't care. We shouldn't have societies where some own land and buildings and livestock and fields, while others own nothing and must work for them. I have believed that since I was a teenager, and life's experience has confirmed that this is as true as the need for universal health care or education.

---

Well, all I can say is that I am not likely to change your opinion then - but I am VERY glad that these ideas will never cause anyone to be elected here.

And I think it is relevant to discuss what it would mean for rabble.ca. You say it would only result in a loss of a headache? Don't you think it would be more headaches if it was communally-owned? Would it be owned by all Canadians - or would it even exist? Do you envision only various CBCs or would there be other media outlets in your ideal Canada?

ETA:

To answer the thread topic and question: no. Not only that, but I think private property is crucial to libertarianism.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Well, all I can say is that I am not likely to change your opinion then - but I am VERY glad that these ideas will never cause anyone to be elected here.

---

That's what they used to say about universal health care. They still say that in the U.S. - which is why no "serious" candidate has ever promised to abolish private health care. You are living in the unlamented past.

quote:

---

And I think it is relevant to discuss what it would mean for rabble.ca. You say it would only result in a loss of a headache? Don't you think it would be more headaches if it was communally-owned?

---

Frankly, I have no precise idea of who "owns" it now. Do you? I'll bet you don't. You just seem to have pure faith that as long as it's owned by some individual or individuals, it's in safer hands than if it were communally owned. Your instincts are definitely the opposite of mine, and I think mine are better rooted in the Canadian experience than yours are.

quote:

---

Do you envision only various CBCs or would there be other media outlets in your ideal Canada?

---

I envision only one media outlet which would only be allowed to propagate my views. Happy?

quote:

---

To answer the thread topic and question: no. Not only that, but I think private property is crucial to libertarianism.

---

I'm a worker. I'm a trade unionist. The only reason we need a union is because we face individuals and small groups who own our means of existence. They have the right and power to build them up and tear them down at will. And even when we workers combine into huge organizations, we still end up without any semblance of real equality in facing these individuals.

quote:

---

Frankly, I have no precise idea of who "owns" it now. Do you? I'll bet you don't. You just seem to have pure faith that as long as it's owned by some individual or individuals, it's in safer hands than if it were communally owned. Your instincts are definitely the opposite of mine, and I think mine are better rooted in the Canadian experience than yours are.

---

I do not know who the legal owners are. I do know that there have been an awful lot of threads on CBC and how babblers are annoyed with bias and their reporting. As a private organization, rabble is accountable to us as readers and commenters and if do not keep coming back and clicking and if they don't satisfy us with content - we will not return, which means no advertisers and no donations.

If it were appropriated into some type of extension of CBC - I highly doubt that most members here would be celebrating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
If Jack Layton ran the next election on the promise of making all property is this country universally-owned, I guarantee he would lose seats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

We don't have elections. We just get pitchforks and take property away from hard-working citizens. Haven't you heard?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
haha - I am seriously and sincerely trying to discuss this.

---

Me too. But when we're discussing the merits of private vs. communal ownership and you start up about suppression of ideas, I consider you to be drifting. George W. Bush just criticized China for cracking down on dissidents.

quote:

---

I did use to share your views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

See? You once understood the value of sharing.

---

When I own nothing, there is nothing to share. The verb sharing implies some sort of free will or property to be shared. When everything is shared, then nothing really is - as there was no choice in the matter.

I am huge believer in coops, etc. PEI actually has a wonderful history of them and there are a lot of successes in this regard. However, we also have a history of horrible failures in terms of government-run and controlled enterprises.

I am not a libertarian though, as a I believe in a welfare state. From my study of political philosophy, socialist libertarianism is a bit of an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves social darwinism - rather than a social safety net to help those in need. I also think that private property is a citizen's right and that equality of opportunity, not of outcome is an important value. There should be a minimum standard of outcome ensured by a well-managed and well-funded welfare state.

I am currently looking to buy a home and my partner wants to own his own business from home. I would not give up the right to own either without a fight. There currently are no private property rights in this country, and I witnessed part of our family farm appropriated by the Province to make way for a highway. Saying no was not an option. This experience helped change my views, which I had developped in university after studying various political theories and social work.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
When I own nothing, there is nothing to share.

---

quote:

---

I witnessed part of our family farm appropriated by the Province to make way for a highway. Saying no was not an option.

---

And I am not even going to go into the fact, that the land your families farm is on is stolen from other peoples, for whom saying NO was not an option, either.

quote:

---

This experience helped change my views, which I had developped in university after studying various political theories and social work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Go ahead and fight for your house and your business, Ghislaine. When you come up against the interests of society, it will be a lonely battle indeed. And the very last ones to support you will be the other property-owners of this world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Oh, so something emotional happened to you, and you chucked out all rational thought, because you feel you have a right to your privilege, while you obviously believe others do not, now!?

---

Ok, first of all I am well aware of the history of FN peoples and I happen to believe that they have been the most abused in Canada by the lack of property rights. All land claims should be settled immediately - with FN bands getting full property rights that cannot ever be taken away by the government. This can be done communely.

I have nothing at all against communal ownership - but I am against government ownership and the lack of a legal concept of ownership.

And no, I did not think another farmer should lose their land over that. If no farmers were willing to sell the land they needed, then the highway should not have gone through in that locale.

And speaking as a Canadian about this country, there is no groundswell movement for government ownership of all land and property. Most people I know want to own a home and land.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Speak for your own country Sven, as apparently you know sweet fuck all about Canadians, ok?! We have a lot of communal property ownership in Canada, and if the governments ever tried taking it out of our jointly owned hands, and giving it to private ownership, there would be some serious anger and backlash against them going on.

---

Who is arguing here for "taking [property] out of our jointly owned hands, and giving it to private ownership"?

That's not even being discussed here.

ETA: If you think that's a concern, why don't you start a thread on it?

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Ghislaine, don't confuse owning a home and land with owning means of production. If you want the right to own a home and land, that doesn't bother me. The right to own a business where you employ others? That will be at the pleasure of society. If that's a sacred right for you, then we're on different planets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The right to own a business where you employ others? That will be at the pleasure of society.

---

As to your belief, that if no farmers wanted to sell their land, the hwy should have gone elsewhere, I would ask where?

90% of PEI is privately owned, the other 10% is in parks/nature reserves, or is part of the 2 Mi’kmaq communities on Prince Edward Island tracts of land.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

What about the right to own a business where no one else is employed? My man wants to record albums and have solely his own artistic judgment used in the process. Having a government-run, communally-owned recording company would jeopardize his artistic control over the final product.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Furthermore, did you know that FN's in Canada do not want your notion of private ownership of lands?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Having a government-run, communally-owned recording company would jeopardize his artistic control over the final product.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Ghislaine, your thought process is inconsistent, at best. If all FN land claims were settled immediately, you would not have your family farm, seeing as how all of PEI, is under Mi’kmaq land claims.

As to your belief, that if no farmers wanted to sell their land, the hwy should have gone elsewhere, I would ask where?

90% of PEI is privately owned, the other 10% is in parks/nature reserves, or is part of the 2 Mi’kmaq communities on Prince Edward Island tracts of land.

Furthermore, did you know that FN's in Canada do not want your notion of private ownership of lands?

---

I am saying land claims settled in a way that respects all parties currently involved in the process. This is really thread drift, but however land claims play out there are going to be people of European descent that lose land. The government process should compensate them appropriately, but this process is not going to be easy obviously. It has been building up for centuries and those that originally refused to grant land rights to FN people, or got them to sign unfair treaties in a different language are now deceased. I do think that the settling of land claims in an issue of foremost importance to ending the continued racist oppression of FN people in this country.

I do not know what you think my notion of private ownership is, but what do they want out of land claims then? I think the Nis'ga agreement is a perfect example of a FN having complete control without government interference. I fully support the right of FN or any other Canadians to own land communally - I am just saying that it should be voluntary. The situation right now is that reserve land is owned by the government. And how do you speak for all FN people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I’ve worked as a:

■ Newspaper carrier
■ Janitor
■ Painter
■ Radio dispatcher
■ Retail clerk
■ Sunflower roguer (walking field to remove certain plants by hand)
■ Tutor
■ Door-to-door sales
■ Elder caretaker
■ Accountant
■ Lawyer

---

I never realized that I should have felt "oppressed", "exploited", or in a "class struggle" because I was never the owner of the businesses for which I worked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

How so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
I am saying land claims settled in a way that respects all parties currently involved in the process.

---

quote:

---

however land claims play out there are going to be people of European descent that lose land.

---

quote:

---

The government process should compensate them appropriately,

---

quote:

---

but this process is not going to be easy obviously.

---

quote:

---

those that originally refused to grant land rights to FN people, or got them to sign unfair treaties in a different language are now deceased.

---

quote:

---

I do think that the settling of land claims in an issue of foremost importance to ending the continued racist oppression of FN people in this country.

---

quote:

---

I do not know what you think my notion of private ownership is, but what do they want out of land claims then?

---

quote:

---

I think the Nis'ga agreement is a perfect example of a FN having complete control without government interference.

---

quote:

---

And how do you speak for all FN people?

---

quote:

---

If a highway cannot be built, then it cannot be built.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
They, as a collective, want control of their lands, they do not want their lands divided up into private individual person's property.

---

quote:

---

Sven: I never realized that I should have felt "oppressed", "exploited", or in a "class struggle" because I was never the owner of the businesses for which I worked.

---

Ha ha. I see that you are now quoting yourself with the previous misleading remarks you made. I think I will do the same ...

quote:

---

For Sven: Just as a general remark, social class is not a subjective category, even if the boundaries of social classes are not as precise as points on a number line. It is an objective concept, founded on the social relations between people that exist in their productive (work) activity. "Oppressed" has got nothing to do with it, as I suspect you know.

Chomsky's point, which you seem to have gloriously misunderstood, is that a doctrine founded on the "freedom" to dispose of my own labour and the wealth generated by that labour as I see fit is a strange justification for social arrangements that condemn the vast majority to the private dictatorships of businesses controlled and/or owned by others.

Playing with "ownership", "oppression" and other loosely defined terms just shows what a prisoner of such views you yourself are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
If you are unwilling to give up a small portion of your stolen land for the betterment of the collective community PEI community, you sure as hell, will not be willing to give it up to FN land claims.

---

You are not reading what I am writing. I think the Nisga agreement is a great example because that FN now has property rights, rights that do not belong to the government. I realize that the majority of FN do not want personal, private rights - but want them communally. I agree with this. I am just saying that they do not want all landed owned communally by all Canadians. They want their land owned commanally by their own band, with full control in their hands. This is what I agree with.

Put my name on the request form now, please, will ya?

Unionist, clarify, please. You can own a home that was built by other people (unless you did it yourself) and that's okay? Do those workers have a basic right to your home?

Remind's point about FN and land is bang on and can not be argued with. I'm going to dig up a great quote by Wendell Berry, his introduction to Unsettling of America.

In my part of the world, FN and small farmers have more in common than not, and are actively working together in some instances. Not to say it's an ideal situation, especially for the FN.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Because others would have a say over everything from editing to which studio musicians to use, etc.

---

quote:

---

Sven: N.Beltov, are you saying that social classes have nothing to do with "oppression" or "exploitation"?

---

It's an objective category. What the consequences of class rule (by this or that class) is another matter. As you know, I think, very well.

I notice that you haven't addressed Chomsky's main point. Here's a reminder in case you forgot:

quote:

---

Chomsky: “a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
You are not reading what I am writing.

---

quote:

---

I think the Nisga agreement is a great example because that FN now has property rights, rights that do not belong to the government.

---

quote:

---

I realize that the majority of FN do not want personal, private rights - but want them communally.

---

quote:

---

I am just saying that they do not want all landed owned communally by all Canadians.

---

quote:

---

They want their land owned commanally by their own band, with full control in their hands. This is what I agree with.

---

quote:

---

What I meant by all parties need to be compensated is that those who will lose their current land and homes under land claims deals need to be compensated.

---

quote:

---

The land was stolen a long time ago and they bought it long after it was stolen.

---

quote:

---

And yes, even if this was my own family farm I would support this.

---

quote:

---

I do not support the government defining what is "for the good of society" in appropriating our land.

---

Moreover, you appear to believe that those with private ownership should be able to do whatever they want with their land because they would always do what is best. Not fucking likely.

quote:

---

A highway with emissions-spewing cards is for the good of the Island, eh?

---

quote:

---

Pesticide-application in our cancer-ridden Island may be deemed for the good of all by some government.

---

quote:

---

This is why property rights are important, as well as strong environmental regulations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Why would anyone else have any say over editing? Seems like you are building strawmen to kick down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
They want their land owned commanally by their own band, with full control in their hands. This is what I agree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Well then, stop advocating the notion they want personal private ownership of land.

---

I fully support communal property ownership by First Nations. I think they should have that right and land claims should be settled. I think they should own this land seperate from other Canadians (like the Nis'ga) and have 100% control over this land and constitutional protection (notwithstanding strong environmental regulations). Property rights can be communal or individual. What I am against is 100% of all land in Canada being universally by all Canadians. FN land is currently owned by the federal government, ie all Canadians. How is that working out?

In regards to some of your other points - yes I think there should be compensation if settlers are on land deemed to be the property of FN is land claims settlements. 100% of this country is stolen and you cannot kick 100% of all Canadians off of their land with no compensation. And obviously 100% of this country is not going to be put in FN ownership. The people who stole it are dead and the people who it was stolen from are dead, so what is urgently needed (and has been needed for centuries) is a fair and just resolution for the descendants. This is thread drift, so I will drop this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Well, it would have to conform to whatever bureaucratic tape is put up by the governmental body funding this program, ergo, it would seem reasonable that, like the film credit changes, there would be more direct intervention by those involved in funding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Another strawman papalbull. If it is publically owned, one would just slot their time in and use it how they would, no differently than privately owned. You can't churn out hate, child abuse or snuff films, in a privately owned studio either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
You can't churn out hate, child abuse or snuff films, in a privately owned studio either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Research the process to become a professional musiciam in Cuba and what happens if you fail the state test and get back to us.

---

I hope this doesn't become a thread about Cuba!

I think it's more fundamental than that, Ghislaine. I can certainly envision a system whereby there was no government censorship regarding what art was produced in the government-owned studio. However, the first time controversial or "offensive" art was produced in a publicly-funded studio which resulted in any significant public uproar, then the politicians would come flocking in to "address the issue".

But, more fundamentally, why should a person be prohibited from putting a recording studio in his or her home? Why should a person have to get into a queue with other musicians to get access to limited studio recording time in a government-run studio? If a musician wants to put her or his money into recording equipment, the government should stay the fuck out of it.

ETA: And if the musician wants to hire a bass player and a drummer on a recording and if the musician can find the individuals willing to do it, what business is it of the government what they do???

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
...there is government oversight of all privately owned enterprises, for the good of the people contained within the state, by the state.

---

What possible "good of the people" would protected by prohibiting an individual from opening her own recording studio in her home and, instead, requiring that they use a government-run studio?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Shit. This thread will likely be closed for length before Unionist - or anyone else - answers my question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

To quote myself as Sven does, there is government oversight of all privately owned enterprises, for the good of the people contained within the state, by the state.

Throwing up "communist" red herrings shows me where you at ghislaine, and we already knew where sven was at.

---

The communist red herrings are from those who do not think that Canadians should be able to own businesses (or land or houses).

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I find it amusing that all the defenders of right wing libertarianism have studiously avoided addressing the question with which I started this thread. That too, however, is a kind of "answer".

---

The question presumes that "true libertarianism" is necessarily defined as "socialist libertarianism".

If "true libertarianism" is "socialist libertarianism", then I want no part of "true libertarianism".

quote:

---

The question presumes that "true libertarianism" is necessarily defined as "socialist libertarianism".

---

False. I've simply provided babblers with an opportunity to read more about libertarian views, like those of Noam Chomsky, beyond the quote I provided.

quote:

---

If "true libertarianism" is "socialist libertarianism", then I want no part of "true libertarianism".

---

This is more of the same. It's premised on your previous falsehood.

quote:

---

And, it's simplistic to call non-socialist libertarianism "rightwing libertarianism". Non-socialist libertarianism is clearly a mixture of progressive principles (individual civil liberties) and rightwing principles (individual property rights).

---

That's Chomsky's whole point. The libertarianism that you are defending includes property rights for some people that necessarily imply the lack of liberty for others.

So you agree with Chomsky. The only way you can make this misanthropic ideology hold together is by making it an eclectic pile of contradictory bird droppings. Ha ha. What a lightweight.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Never fear. Another thread can be opened without seeking government authorization.

---

Sure about that?