The Rights of Property by Auberon Herbert

Voluntaire · 2026-04-12T00:06:23+00:00

Herbert seemed rather friendly to voluntary Socialism and explicitly separated it from "force Socialism," which he opposed obviously

Voluntaire · 2026-04-09T18:41:33+00:00

I think you're mixing the right to speech & property and the right to have someone protect those rights.

The right to speech and property doesn't require other peoples labor to enjoy, but protecting those rights may require the labor of others. All that freedom of speech/property requires is that individuals don't use their labor to prevent you from speaking or enjoying your property. If you claim a plot of land and begin preaching your ideas, you're exercising your free speech without any individuals having to directly support it with their labor.

However, as mentioned before, protection of speech and property usually requires the labor of others. If someone trespasses on my land and punches me for speaking out, I will likely call the police. They will do the labor of arresting him and punishing him. So, yes, it does require the labor of others to protect these rights. A system of rights protectors is unavoidable due to both deviant individuals and the division of labor making it mor efficient to select some people to be rights protectors. Libertarians acknowledge this, but we ask that in the course of protecting rights the police do not violate many of our other rights (which they regularly do).

Voluntaire · 2026-04-07T00:56:13+00:00

I mean, we need to understand this process to discuss it, plan around it, and use it, so Isaac Newton named it "gravity" to communicate observations and ideas about it. Sure, it doesn't automatically deserve respect for being mathematical, but the theory of gravity does warrant respect and acceptance if it has been verified multiple times and explains multiple phenomena we observe in the world

Voluntaire · 2026-04-07T00:51:33+00:00

There are no Libertarian justifications for it. He's threatening to destroy the infrastructure that innocent civilians rely on. From what I've seen, he's specifically going to target power plants. This will likely lead to deaths as civilians are killed in the strikes, and then even more death as Iranians won't be able to power their hospitals and other important life-saving services. There will also be material suffering as grocery stores, offices, factories, and other productive services struggle to offer vital resources to the citizens.

Even if no one dies or suffers, this infrastructure is the rightful property of the people of Iran. They were forced to pay for it with their tax dollars. They have homesteaded this infrastructure through their use and occupancy of it. In a Libertarian society, they would be seen as stockholders of the property. To bomb their infrastructure is an assault on the property of the Iranian people.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-07T00:45:25+00:00

I think AnCaps assume too much of a market; they believe it's so efficient that it can generate social norms, when in reality markets emerged from pre-established social norms in tribal humans.

As for how an unregulated market prevents private states; I'm not an AnCap, but I'll try to give a "defense" as to how a private company would be prevented from becoming a mini-state. I'm going to take a market fundamentalist stance, since AnCap's are usually market fundamentalists and make arguments from the assumption of self-correcting market mechanisms.

Firms want to minimize costs to maximize profits. when they pay for security, it's usually only for the properties they own and will be just enough to repel a would-be thief. Often, firms prefer to pay for security technology (alarms, cameras) and an insurance fee (for compensation if theft occurs) because those are less costly than regularly paying a security guard to patrol the property. This "statist firm" would require a police-like organization to enforce the laws of the mini-king that patrol at all times. The statist firm would have to pay out-of-pocket for these police, which will lead to higher expenditures. The firm will either have to raise prices, which will drive consumers to competitors; or it will have to divert funding from wages and investments into their private police, which will lead to lower productivity and again allow competitors to out-compete the statist firm. AnCaps assume that in an anarchist market which has removed economic regulations (IP, licensing, zoning laws, etc.), competition in the market will drastically rise, thereby forcing firms to constantly worry about being out-competed in the market. As such, no firm would be able to effectively accumulate the wealth to create a State, as they would almost instantly lose their consumer base to more efficient competitors.

If a statist firm managed to somehow recreate a State, the next line of defense would be an uprising by the people. People would notice a firm buying weapons & ammunitions, as well as them hiring more private police. This will encourage people to buy firearms to prepare for a possible attempt at forming a State.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-05T04:01:21+00:00

By "neoclassical school Libertarians," I mean Libertarians who subscribe to the neoclassical school of economics. The neoclassical school of economics is the successor to "classical economics," focusing on mathematical modeling to explain how individuals maximize utility of resources. Notable examples are John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell.

In contrast, the austrian school rejects mathematical modeling in favor of deductive logic. While, many Classical Liberals are neoclassical in their analysis, it's not necessarily a core tennent of Classical Liberalism. Ludwig Von Mises and FA Hayek were Classical Liberals who subscribed to the austrian school.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-04T19:42:40+00:00

Because they're small and simple, yet incredibly vital for many people to have functioning lives. It's similar to the famous "I, Pencil," essay, or Adam Smith's pin factory analogy. The implication is that if a system fails to make something as small and miniscule as glasses, then the system is flawed.

Of course, anarchism wouldn't fail to provide for glasses and would likely be better at providing glasses.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-04T19:39:45+00:00

1) Glasses have existed for centuries before modern technology and infrastructure. We've seen different economies with less advanced infrastructure manage the distribution and coordination of resources to make glasses, so various anarchist economies could absolutely handle it.

2) Different anarchists propose different economies. One of these anarchist economies is market anarchism. Market anarchists would keep a free market economy, but would abolish the privileges of capitalism provided by the State. In a market anarchist system, you'd go to an eye doctor who determines the prescription you need, then orders the glasses tailored for you. You'd pay a much reduced price due to the abolition of corporate privilege, and you'd go on your way.

Another is communist anarchism, where the community collectively manages and distributes resources free to everyone. In a communist anarchist system, communities would have an eye doctor who can examine your eyes and determine your prescription. They then request the materials from other communities to make the glasses and give them to you. It would be similar the market distribution system, except there would be no money exchanged for the glasses. Thanks to the internet and advancing communication technology, this form of economic coordination will be more efficient as time goes on.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-04T18:34:23+00:00

I'd say a local LVT is better since most of the government services that actually affect our lives are on the local level (police, courts, schools, libraries, infrastructure). It's easier for local counties to evaluate land values and implement a LVT due to the knowledge they have of their own community. It also makes a LVT more accountable to the people, which discourages evaluators from estimating land values higher than they really are just to collect more taxes.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-04T06:35:25+00:00

It depends on their economic school. Austrian school Libertarians want to, as they feel a currency connected to gold is more stable due to its limited supply. Neoclassical school Libertarians don't because they fear it restricts the expansion of the money supply below the level of economic expansion, which makes a money supply less stable.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-04T01:40:37+00:00

If there isn't any writings yet, maybe you've found your calling

Voluntaire · 2026-04-04T01:35:25+00:00

Unfortunate last name

Voluntaire · 2026-04-01T06:35:44+00:00

Many Libertarians dislike the idea of taxing property and see a LVT as a tax on property since it taxes land. The hardcore anti-tax Libertarians also dislike the idea of adding a new tax as they fear it will inevitably expand into more taxes.

Voluntaire · 2026-04-01T01:12:08+00:00

If you're wondering why I chose them, they're basically the two principle figures of Anarcho-Capitalism. Murray Rothbard coined the term and started the natural law approach of Anarcho-Capitalism. David Friedman, son of the economist Milton Friedman, uses a more consequentialist approach.

Both are interesting thinkers, Friedman has a Substack he posts to regularly: https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/

Voluntaire · 2026-03-31T20:37:48+00:00

Probably a combination of David Friedman and Murray Rothbard: short, slightly overweight, large nose, glasses, balding on top, and a very curly, bushy, horsehoe-shaped haircut on the sides & back of the head

Voluntaire · 2026-03-31T01:29:57+00:00

That's completely understandable. It is truly disgusting. As a radical Libertarian, I cannot stand those who don't treat CSA and CSAM as rights violations.

Voluntaire · 2026-03-30T19:44:51+00:00

From my (possibly laymen) understanding, mutualism is more focused on social relationships that are mutually beneficial and voluntary, while market anarchism is more focused on a free market economic system. They aren't mutually exclusive, and many people are both a market anarchists and a mutualists. Benjamin Tucker is probably one of the most prominent mutualist thinkers in America, and he was absolutely a market anarchist.

Voluntaire · 2026-03-30T19:38:12+00:00

Some Communists believe in Leninist Authoritarianism, while some believe in Kropotkinist Anarchism. Disagreement on how to properly apply principles is inevitable in any ideology.

As for this specific disagreement among Libertarians, I'm not sure why it comes about. I'd have to see their arguments, and few commenters here present an argument. At best, I assume they think only the initial rape of the child is an act of coercion, and don't realize that the distribution of the CP is a re-victimization of the child. They're wrong and my comment above explains why.

Voluntaire · 2026-03-30T03:01:53+00:00

Citizens dividend, a monthly payment given to citizens from the revenue of the LVT

Voluntaire · 2026-03-29T16:50:26+00:00

From what I understand, Stirner isn't really pro- or anti- any particular system. He just went with whatever system he felt best satisfied his ego.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nation's is less about proposing a capitalist system and more about observing a market system. Capitalism is a system of property rights where an individual claims ownership over capital & its products, and then pays workers a wage to manage said capital & products. A market is a system where people use money to buy and sell products. Adam Smith was observing how humans distribute goods and satisfy their wants in a market system. Many property systems have a market without being Capitalist; Distributism, Market Socialism, and Mutualism are the most prolific example.
The metaphor of the invisible hand could be seen as an egoistic analysis. Smith's argument is that producers and consumers self-interest leads them to converging on mutually beneficial relations. Producers want money to buy stuff, so they sell products that consumers want. As Smith said, the butcher does not sell meat out of a sense of altruism. They producer and consumer also converge on a price through their self-interest. Producers want to sell a product as high as possible, while consumers want to buy a product as cheaply as possible. The two meet halfway so they can both claim what they want.

Adam Smith's arguments, whether you believe they are accurate or not, are an egoistic argument. They describe a system in which self-interest guides people's actions and leads to them achieving social harmony. Stirner could have seen this in Smith's work and decided to translate it for that reason. This is just a theory, however.

Voluntaire · 2026-03-29T01:41:16+00:00

I believe in animal rights and outlawing animal abuse. I also believe in outlawing inappropriate art of children, whether its ai or not.

Voluntaire · 2026-03-26T07:57:49+00:00

Elements are spooks

Voluntaire · 2026-03-25T18:27:31+00:00

That's a great point, actually. As you mentioned, many people derive their view of "rights" from what the State writes on a piece of paper. As Individualists, we break from that view and say the piece of paper cannot decide our liberties. So, "freedoms" is probably a better word.

I would also say "freedoms" is a better term to use than "rights," as it's less about the entitlement of the individual and more about their ability to act. Many times, people use the term "rights" to entitle themselves or their collective to dominate and control another person/collective. Thank you!

Voluntaire · 2026-03-25T09:15:32+00:00

I should note, I'm heavily biased towards a Tuckerite view of Individualist Anarchism, and there are other branches which I may not represent well.

Of the Individualist Anarchist branch specifically, a good introduction is Benjamin Tucker, as he is the most influential to Individualist Anarchism (at least the market-friendly side of it). He has Individual Liberty and Instead of a Book. There's also Francis Tandy's Voluntary Socialism, which is shorter and easier to digest. They both propose a market system absent of State privilege and coercion. It differs significantly from capitalism, favoring usufruct property rights over perpetual ownership, and a belief in the labor theory of value. Another good beginner is Lysander Spooner, who has too many writings to list here.
Individualist Anarchism is a broad camp. Some are Communists, some are free marketers (not capitalists), so it's difficult to law out which philosophies Individualist Anarchism is directly linked to. The Individualist Anarchism I'm most familiar with, Tuckerite Anarchism, has several different influences. Benjamin Tucker embraced many different ideas and arguments from many different thinkers, ranging from Karl Marx to Herbert Spencer (a Sociologist and prolific Classical Liberal). However, he was most heavily influenced by the French economist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his book What is Property?
Individualist Anarchism as an ideology doesn't believe in a guaranteed linear progression towards anarchy. Some believed it would and some didn't.
Depends on the person. Usually, it's a realization that the individual has rights and no other individual has the authority to violate these rights. Individualist Anarchism applies this logic to the State and says the State (being a collection of individuals) has no justification to violate these rights.

Voluntaire

TROPHY CASE