Libertarian Structures

[Blagsta]

Contradictory how?

 

[gosub]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states : "libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions."

how many people read Minton report or MP gagged questions today.
This is information that from a statist, authoritarian or totalitarian perspective is decreed you aren't supposed to have, let alone disseminate. I cannot see how that it has, can be explained with ownership from the other end of that particular philosophical spectrum.

 

[Blagsta]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states : "libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions."

how many people read Minton report or MP gagged questions today.
This is information that from a statist, authoritarian or totalitarian perspective is decreed you aren't supposed to have, let alone disseminate. I cannot see how that it has, can be explained with ownership from the other end of that particular philosophical spectrum.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is using a very new (American and contradictory) definition of libertarian. It has a much older (European) use as being synonmous with anarchism, i.e. opposed to private property rights and in favour of socialised property.

A system controlled by private enterprise that you have to have a certain level of wealth to access is certainly not libertarian in the original, European and consistent sense of the word.

 

[gosub]

Your definition "opposed to private property rights and in favour of socialised property." fits perfectly over public dissemination of a gagged Minton Report
you haven't explained how the opposing end of the spectrum could claim ownership of what occured

 

[Blagsta]

What?

I'm asking you how the internet, a system run by private companies is libertarian (in the original sense of the word).

 

[gosub]

the only bit of confusion I may have left you is property rights and ownership.

In this context I am equating intellectual property with property, "ownership" though, a simile would (eta: be) a Chelsea fan saying "we won the FA CUP"

 

[Blagsta]

You're not making any sense.

 

[gosub]

 

[Blagsta]

I'm asking you to expand on how the internet is a libertarian structure. In return, you post links to irrelevant things.

I guess the net could be libertarian if more people had access to it (according to wikipedia only 25% of the world's population use it) and if it was run by co-operatives rather than private businesses.

 

[tbaldwin]

Contradictory how?

To me it has always seemed contradictory because Libertarianism has much more emphasis on the wishes/rights of the individual. And Socialism to me much more about the collective good.
I dont see the two fitting very well at all. I think Socialism has to be authoritarian in that decisions need to made that will upset lots of people.

To me people use the word Libertarian as opposed to authoratarian because they associate authoritarian with underhand and undemocratic.

I think though that you need decisions made on a democratic basis not any kind of concensus nonsense which i have seen anarchos reach non decisions by.

 

[Blagsta]

The "collective good" is made up of individuals...but concrete individuals, i.e. individuals situated in a social context, not the abstract individuals of Liberal theory.

 

[tbaldwin]

The "collective good" is made up of individuals...but concrete individuals, i.e. individuals situated in a social context, not the abstract individuals of Liberal theory.

Sorry Blagsta thats gone right over my head. Could you simplify it for me?

 

[Blagsta]

The "collective good" is made up of individuals, which are, in turn, shaped by the "collective good".