Comments for From Ancap With Love http://www.fromancapwithlove.com Amelia Vreeland Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:06:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on The Two Constructs of Libertarianism – Analysis | Reason for Liberty by Ranae Brendeland http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/austrian-economics/the-two-constructs-of-libertarianism-analysis-reason-for-liberty/#comment-1006 Ranae Brendeland Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:06:25 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=27#comment-1006 It’s onerous to search out knowledgeable people on this matter, however you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks It’s onerous to search out knowledgeable people on this matter, however you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

]]> Comment on About Amelia by Hugo Newman http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/about/#comment-970 Hugo Newman Sun, 04 Sep 2011 00:44:56 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?page_id=2#comment-970 That Shaffer quote is wonderful. Thanks for posting it, and for your consistently excellent posts/videos. Keep up the good work. My very best wishes. Hugo. That Shaffer quote is wonderful. Thanks for posting it, and for your consistently excellent posts/videos. Keep up the good work. My very best wishes. Hugo.

]]> Comment on About Amelia by Amelia Vreeland http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/about/#comment-961 Amelia Vreeland Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:21:01 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?page_id=2#comment-961 You're in Holland? You’re in Holland?

]]> Comment on About Amelia by Bitanarchy http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/about/#comment-960 Bitanarchy Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:14:54 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?page_id=2#comment-960 Vreeland, is that that you last name or just how you named your website? It appears to be a village very close to me :-) No ancap girls here though... Vreeland, is that that you last name or just how you named your website? It appears to be a village very close to me :-) No ancap girls here though…

]]> Comment on Critique of Mutualist Labor and Organizational Theory by Cal http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/freedom/critique-of-mutualist-labor-and-organizational-theory/#comment-947 Cal Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:23:46 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=283#comment-947 Well-written and concise post. I've been meaning to write a critique of "mutualism" (which for all practical purposes means a critique of the blogger Kevin Carson on economic value theory and property right norms) from an ideologically neutral perspective but it's really time-consuming because, unlike you, Carson is long-winded. Well-written and concise post. I’ve been meaning to write a critique of “mutualism” (which for all practical purposes means a critique of the blogger Kevin Carson on economic value theory and property right norms) from an ideologically neutral perspective but it’s really time-consuming because, unlike you, Carson is long-winded.

]]> Comment on Critique of Mutualist Labor and Organizational Theory by Alex http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/freedom/critique-of-mutualist-labor-and-organizational-theory/#comment-922 Alex Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:22:42 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=283#comment-922 I am not convinced by what you say about self-ownership (but that doesn’t mean you are wrong). Let’s assume that you are right. How do you deal with abortion? (Is the child’s body part of his mother’s or not?) Moreover how do you deal with children in general? I suppose they own their body, but do you think they should be free (have the right to use it in the way they want to)? De facto minors are not totally free but why is it their parents (or their whole family) who control them? I mean, if children own their body, they should allow their parents to control it (sign a contract or something similar) but this never happens. Does that mean that parental control is only grounded in strength or do parents have a right to control their child? And then, how do you justify this right? (Do parents own their children?) Last question: how do you decide what the age of majority should be? (I am sorry for not being very fluent in English. Let me know if what I write is unclear. You don’t have to answer all these questions. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I would only like to see how you deal with these problems.) I agree with what you write about value scales. It is obvious that a boy who does not dare to ask a girl out because he is shy values his own image more than the pleasure linked to the date. Consequently it is true that he does what he wants. Yet, this does not mean he wants to be shy and I don’t consider shyness or laziness or other character traits (or addictions) as being facts of nature. I know economists usually do consider them as facts of nature but should one always think as an economist? I am not convinced by what you say about self-ownership (but that doesn’t mean you are wrong). Let’s assume that you are right. How do you deal with abortion? (Is the child’s body part of his mother’s or not?) Moreover how do you deal with children in general? I suppose they own their body, but do you think they should be free (have the right to use it in the way they want to)? De facto minors are not totally free but why is it their parents (or their whole family) who control them? I mean, if children own their body, they should allow their parents to control it (sign a contract or something similar) but this never happens. Does that mean that parental control is only grounded in strength or do parents have a right to control their child? And then, how do you justify this right? (Do parents own their children?) Last question: how do you decide what the age of majority should be?

(I am sorry for not being very fluent in English. Let me know if what I write is unclear. You don’t have to answer all these questions. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I would only like to see how you deal with these problems.)

I agree with what you write about value scales. It is obvious that a boy who does not dare to ask a girl out because he is shy values his own image more than the pleasure linked to the date. Consequently it is true that he does what he wants. Yet, this does not mean he wants to be shy and I don’t consider shyness or laziness or other character traits (or addictions) as being facts of nature. I know economists usually do consider them as facts of nature but should one always think as an economist?

]]> Comment on Critique of Mutualist Labor and Organizational Theory by Amelia Vreeland http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/freedom/critique-of-mutualist-labor-and-organizational-theory/#comment-917 Amelia Vreeland Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:21:28 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=283#comment-917 A body has all of the elements of a property: it has boundaries, can be claimed and controlled. This is why it is subject to ownership. You necessarily control your body in purposeful action as a fact of nature. I think it seems that since nobody can ever have ownership proper over you (have complete control) the ownership goes to you. Although there are other justifications for freedom, pragmatic/societal, this is the one that my theory rests on. Those arguments lead to the same conclusions and I'd highly suggested to anybody who doesn't like the idea of self-ownership. You are able to control yourself, it is just that you have value scales. You may want to ask a girl out, but there is something you hold more highly than that, like "not being rejected." You may want to eat a good lunch but there is something you value more highly than that, something like "resting" This is referred to as demonstrated preference. I don't think freedom means superseding facts of nature--I may want to be able to breathe without an atmosphere, but that is a physical impossibility and nothing being imposed on me by other people (the only thing that can infringe on another humans rights). I may want to have born without asthma, but it is not not-freedom, because it has not been done onto me by another human consciousness. A body has all of the elements of a property: it has boundaries, can be claimed and controlled. This is why it is subject to ownership. You necessarily control your body in purposeful action as a fact of nature. I think it seems that since nobody can ever have ownership proper over you (have complete control) the ownership goes to you.
Although there are other justifications for freedom, pragmatic/societal, this is the one that my theory rests on. Those arguments lead to the same conclusions and I’d highly suggested to anybody who doesn’t like the idea of self-ownership.
You are able to control yourself, it is just that you have value scales. You may want to ask a girl out, but there is something you hold more highly than that, like “not being rejected.” You may want to eat a good lunch but there is something you value more highly than that, something like “resting” This is referred to as demonstrated preference.
I don’t think freedom means superseding facts of nature–I may want to be able to breathe without an atmosphere, but that is a physical impossibility and nothing being imposed on me by other people (the only thing that can infringe on another humans rights). I may want to have born without asthma, but it is not not-freedom, because it has not been done onto me by another human consciousness.

]]> Comment on Critique of Mutualist Labor and Organizational Theory by Alex http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/freedom/critique-of-mutualist-labor-and-organizational-theory/#comment-915 Alex Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:21:18 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=283#comment-915 Thank you for your answer. Could you explain to me how you justify self-ownership? My body is my own body but it doesn't mean it is an owned body. It is not something I have but something I am and I need to have it if I want to own any other thing. The body has a very particular status and don't you think there is another way (different from self-ownership) of justifying the right to defend oneself from aggression? You say freedom is about having complete control over what you own. Yet, there are some situations in which you do not do what you want to do. I'm talking about very common situations (for example : I'd like to go out with this person but I'm to shy to talk to him or her; or I'd like to eat a good lunch but I'm to lazy to buy food and to cook, etc.). Don't you think that being allowed to control the things you own isn't enough to be genuinely free because you're not able to control yourself? Thank you for your answer. Could you explain to me how you justify self-ownership? My body is my own body but it doesn’t mean it is an owned body. It is not something I have but something I am and I need to have it if I want to own any other thing. The body has a very particular status and don’t you think there is another way (different from self-ownership) of justifying the right to defend oneself from aggression?

You say freedom is about having complete control over what you own. Yet, there are some situations in which you do not do what you want to do. I’m talking about very common situations (for example : I’d like to go out with this person but I’m to shy to talk to him or her; or I’d like to eat a good lunch but I’m to lazy to buy food and to cook, etc.). Don’t you think that being allowed to control the things you own isn’t enough to be genuinely free because you’re not able to control yourself?

]]> Comment on Critique of Mutualist Labor and Organizational Theory by Amelia Vreeland http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/freedom/critique-of-mutualist-labor-and-organizational-theory/#comment-914 Amelia Vreeland Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:26:34 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=283#comment-914 Hello, I do believe in self-ownership (that you own your own body) and that your right to own external goods is an extension of it, which you can gain through homesteading, gift or trade. Freedom is being allowed to have complete control over these things. Any molestation by other humans of things that you own is an infringement upon your freedom. This is also the foundation that mutualist theory rests on. Where we differ has to do mainly with beliefs about original factors of production--land and labor. They believe that a capitalist infringes upon peoples right to their property/their labor by taking labor-created surplus value (profit); I believe collective ownership infringes upon the right to your property and your body by extension. Mutualist also believe that absentee ownership of land is less preferable than only allowing for usuary rights; I think that due to the homesteading principle, once somebody has homesteaded land, even if they've left it, they're still the owner and to "take" their land from them is an infringement on their rights. By a well functioning economy, I guess I mean one where a money is uniform and based on consumers goods so that calculation and safety exist for people with money holdings, that people who own things own them all of the way so each actor can do what he thinks best with his property, that their are people who can employ other people so that different time preferences can be mediated so that the structure of production is being lengthened and not shortened. I think these factors can help bring a very strong economy by allowing for people--consumers, capitalists and producers--to do what they consider in their best interest with their property by leaving less uncertainty about the ownership status of their goods. I hope that answers you a little bit! Let me know if anything is unclear and thanks for commenting. Hello,
I do believe in self-ownership (that you own your own body) and that your right to own external goods is an extension of it, which you can gain through homesteading, gift or trade. Freedom is being allowed to have complete control over these things. Any molestation by other humans of things that you own is an infringement upon your freedom. This is also the foundation that mutualist theory rests on. Where we differ has to do mainly with beliefs about original factors of production–land and labor. They believe that a capitalist infringes upon peoples right to their property/their labor by taking labor-created surplus value (profit); I believe collective ownership infringes upon the right to your property and your body by extension. Mutualist also believe that absentee ownership of land is less preferable than only allowing for usuary rights; I think that due to the homesteading principle, once somebody has homesteaded land, even if they’ve left it, they’re still the owner and to “take” their land from them is an infringement on their rights.
By a well functioning economy, I guess I mean one where a money is uniform and based on consumers goods so that calculation and safety exist for people with money holdings, that people who own things own them all of the way so each actor can do what he thinks best with his property, that their are people who can employ other people so that different time preferences can be mediated so that the structure of production is being lengthened and not shortened. I think these factors can help bring a very strong economy by allowing for people–consumers, capitalists and producers–to do what they consider in their best interest with their property by leaving less uncertainty about the ownership status of their goods.
I hope that answers you a little bit! Let me know if anything is unclear and thanks for commenting.

]]> Comment on Critique of Mutualist Labor and Organizational Theory by Alex http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/freedom/critique-of-mutualist-labor-and-organizational-theory/#comment-913 Alex Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:47:55 +0000 http://www.fromancapwithlove.com/?p=283#comment-913 Hi, I have some questions about your text. You write:"This isn’t freedom as I understand it." But what is your definition of freedom? (and what is the mutualists' definition of freedom?). Do you think you own your body? (that's a very complicated question so you have the right not to answer it). And, what is a well functioning economy? Hi,
I have some questions about your text. You write:”This isn’t freedom as I understand it.” But what is your definition of freedom? (and what is the mutualists’ definition of freedom?). Do you think you own your body? (that’s a very complicated question so you have the right not to answer it). And, what is a well functioning economy?

]]>