This a far more interesting "disagreement" to talk about than the 30-year old Mises v. Cato petty bickering. Anyway, I agree with Kinsella here. Private property and its protection is central to libertarianism. And the discomfort some people feel with the word "capitalism" stems largely from its history of being associated with State aggression in both national and international scale--which is why I also avoid using that term. As a libertarian who believes in private property, I do realize that libertarianism has failed to address a few problems: 1. What about current "private property" held by a family whose original members came to by aggression (State or otherwise)? Are these legitimate private property claims? 2. Given that the advantage (in terms of wealth and land ownership) being enjoyed by current descendants is directly linked to historical aggression, what non-aggressive solutions can libertarianism offer to solve this problem? Is it even considered a problem? 3. If the answer to the above questions is that they are not problems, then what makes "Lockean libertarians" different from "mutualists" if both seem to endorse the idea that historical aggression is okay as long libertarians principles are in effect outside that time period? /cc Stephan Kinsella, Gary Chartier, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:30:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015