Comments on: A nuanced approach to the revolutionary redistribution of property

By: Niccolo

Niccolo — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:57:47 +0000

Well, I went ahead and stole your idea Brad.

However, I’m open to many different edits to the as of now finished copy.

You can reach it here.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IKJPSFrr7qA1KRxLP3to0bkX5sHTH442RWzN4aavGJYxdrCOUm67c8YdRPAtXTfOjz_kzXCsd8e8A3m9fiHP9N5Q1aF4VtxvExmtdA/RevolutionaryRedistribution.pdf

I think there’s a lot to be done with it, but it’s a start.

By: francoistremblay

francoistremblay — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:43:21 +0000

That’s what I meant, yes.

By: Soviet Onion

Soviet Onion — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:09:22 +0000

You could say that since all nominal property owners pay income property taxes, no one really owns anything in a meaningful sense. We all just have a perpetually-tranferable lease that gets revoked if we stop making payments to the the Great Big Feudal Landlord in the sky, as long as we’re living within the borders of his property.

By: francoistremblay

francoistremblay — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:56:16 +0000

To be more specific, all statist property is fraud. The rest is almost all legitimate. Of course, the State encompasses a great number of areas of society.

By: Per Bylund

Per Bylund — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:37:32 +0000

belinsky,

I actually wrote one too on my blog, but I have it scheduled for publication on Saturday. So there are at least three of us.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:15:28 +0000

Well, if you’re looking for another party to confirm your hunch that this is a great line, I’m happy to provide confirmation. Not only did you nail it, but I think this line is going in the random quotes I display on my blog. Well said!

It actually sounds a lot like that old Karl Hess line:

The truth, of course, is that libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private. Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title.

Those last two sentences mirror your saying almost precisely.

By: Bob Kaercher

Bob Kaercher — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:20:52 +0000

I think that one line puts it pretty succinctly, Brad. It spells out the premise of a thesis and discussion quite clearly.

In keeping with the reference to Proudhon, may I suggest coupling your one-liner with another one-liner?

“And not all property is freedom, because so much of it is subject to expropriation.”

Or some such variation that may be a little less clumsy than my own suggestion. I realize this defeats the idea of distilling things down to a single talking point, but, depending on whom you’re engaging, it may crystallize even more how much property is both directly and indirectly monopolized by statist means for the benefit of a privileged group of parasites.

By: belinsky

belinsky — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:59:58 +0000

How is it that within a couple hours of each other, both you and I decided to write about the same Rothbard article? I refer to this post of mine: http://thusspokebelinsky.blogspot.com/2008/06/murray-rothbard-supports-state.html

Now, as for your slogan. Do you agree with Rothbardian property theory and the homestead principle? If so, then I won’t comment, because I believe in Tuckerite occupancy and use-based property rights.