general strikes?

[FrankChodorov]

firsty - welcome to the world of left-libertarianism!

you will not find many friends here...

I myself am a mutualist (free market, anti-capitalist) and geo-libertarian (free land, free labor)

http://mutualist.org/index.html

excerpt:
Mutualism, as a variety of anarchism, goes back to P.J. Proudhon in France and Josiah Warren in the U.S.  It favors, to the extent possible, an evolutionary approach to creating a new society.  It emphasizes the importance of peaceful activity in building alternative social institutions within the existing society, and strengthening those institutions until they finally replace the existing statist system.  As Paul Goodman put it, "A free society cannot be the substitution of a 'new order' for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life."

     Other anarchist subgroups, and the libertarian left generally, share these ideas to some extent.  Whether known as "dual power" or "social counterpower," or "counter-economics," alternative social institutions are part of our common vision.  But they are especially central to mutualists' evolutionary understanding.

     Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists.  Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself.  We are not opposed to money or exchange.  We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use.  We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid.  The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept.  What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism.

     Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.  To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.


http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm
excerpt:
Geolibertarians are simply libertarians who take the principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion:  Just as the right to one's self implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere.  Hence  John Locke's proviso  that one has "property" in land only to the extent that there is "enough, and as good left in common for others."  When there is not, land begins to have rental value. Thus, the rental value of land (called "economic rent") reflects the extent to which Locke's proviso has been violated, thereby making community-collection of rent, a just and necessary means of upholding the Lockean principle of private property.  In the late 19th century the "Single Tax" was a term that was (and is) used to denote Henry George's proposal to abolish all taxes save for a single "tax" on the value of land, irrespective of the value of improvements in or on it. 

    "When we tax houses, crops, money, furniture, capital or wealth in any of its forms, we take from individuals what rightfully belongs to them.  We violate the right of property, and in the name of the State commit robbery. But when we tax ground values, we take from individuals what does not belong to them, but belongs to the community, and which cannot be left to individuals without robbery of other individuals" (George, The Single Tax: What It Is and Why We Urge It, p. 6).

But Doesn't A "Tax" on Land Value Violate The Right to Property?

No.  Private property derives its moral justification from the right of the individual to the fruits of his or her labor; but unlike houses, machinery, clothes, etc., land is (1) not the fruit of anyone's labor, (2) in fixed supply, and (3) the literal foundation upon which any exercise of individual liberty must take place. Thus, while there is a right to private possession of land, the right to possession must be limited by the equal right of others.

Consider the alternative. If only some individuals "own" the earth, then only some have a right to live upon it. Consequently, those who do not own land do not have a right to the fruits of their own labor, since they are obligated at birth to pay title-holders a certain percentage of their earnings for mere access to the planet, as if title-holders are responsible for the earth's very existence. It is thus private collection of economic rent that violates the right to property.

[firsty]

thanks for those links, frank. i'll check them out. well, they're already loaded in my tabs, so i'll be not working in my office as we speak and instead reading reading reading.

right now i consider myself, if i were forced to apply a label, a constitutionalist, if there is such a thing. i believe in the US consitution as it stands. i shy away from capitalism as we have it. in many ways i think it can work, but not the way it's going right now. there are different ways of interpreting the consitution when it comes to the economy, but there are fewer ways to interpret it (i believe) in terms of personal freedoms.

i'm a reckless revolutionary-minded writer. my heroes are mostly writers: hst (note the avatar), kerouac, kafka, kerouac, kundera, kesey, bukowski, some of them clearly and overtly non-political, some very political. i dont look at myself as a political person, but i dont see how any thinking person in this day can proceed with thought and expression without considering the political world around him. i look at myself as a unstable writer with a family who values personal freedoms and now feels compelled to fight for them, as they are so insanely threatened right now.

sometimes i'm a pragmatic, sometimes i wallow in existentialism, sometimes i'm here, sometimes there. thats why i hate labels. they imply a static state of thought and expression which i simply dont have the head for.

on the other hand, labels are great ways to connect ideas, and, again, i appreciate the links. now on to read!

[FrankChodorov]

one of the biggest problems with the constitution is the obvious flaw in Madison's thinking that you could construct a large democratic constitutional republic with horizontal (branches) and vertical (subsidiarity) checks and balance...if Jefferson had been a part of the constitutional convention how would he have been able to square this with his true civic republican "ward republic" vision?

what was it about Shay's rebellion (land, money, taxes nexus) that needed such a drastic change?

[firsty]

i think the fathers were genius in that they realized that they had to arrange a republic that could be versatile enough for reality while also forward-looking enough to anticipate future problems. in many ways, their anticipation was accurate, but in many ways the world has changed too drastically. i do feel that ideally, we need another constitution. i would support a revolution in this country. in that regard, i guess i'm a radical. but i still believe in the power of the citizens to make dramatic changes.

jefferson is my boy. if he said it, i agree with it. except for the slave part.

[firsty]

ok, done some reading. my issue with geolibertarianism is that unless fully implemented, it will not work - the economics of it simply won't benefit the individual. and nothing anymore can be fully implemented. at least thats my low math interpretation of it.

mutualism has a good goal, it seems, but its method, i think, is subpar. i favor more aggressive tactics. but thats just me.

america used to be an admired place, even with its flaws (and there were always many, and some were severe), it still provided a guidepost towards a better place. it doesnt provide that anymore.

regarding slow change, i would support re-examining all of our districting, to ensure that elected officials are actually representative of their population, i feel we need to embrace islam* much more than we do (we hardly do, at all, now), i feel we need to move in the opposite direction of facism (as opposed to what the US is doing now), and i feel that free trade needs to mean: free trade, something the US currently only engages in to its liking.

mostly, we need to stop killing people. we need to stop funding the military for proxy wars and we need to make sure that there are economic opportunities for everyone in america first and foremost.

i'm shocked that the citizens of washington dc havent risen up and simply marched into the capitol and staged a massive occupation. much of our poor arent poor because they are lazy, but they are just as lazy as the rich or middle class. thats why i believe that the key to revolution is the dissemination of information.

*(edit)embracing islam in a diplomatic fashion, not within the rule of law. we need to distance ourselves from christian associations within the rule of law, thereby making the US view of all religions equal. i'm astonished at the degree to which so many americans have embraced christianity (falsely) during a religious war. it would seem that there should be more of an american effort to state its belief in separation of church and state, to re-state and re-affirm that we are not a christian nation.

[FrankChodorov]

. my issue with geolibertarianism is that unless fully implemented, it will not work - the economics of it simply won't benefit the individual.

we have local property taxes in place today in NH (we have no other broadbased taxes)

all that needs to be done are:

1. shift taxes off of labor and capital and onto land values.

(rents will drop drastically)

2. rather than pay the local government - share the economic rent directly and equally with your neighbors.

mutualism has a good goal, it seems, but its method, i think, is subpar.

specifically what?

the "dual power" strategy?

[firsty]

we have local property taxes in place today in NH (we have no other broadbased taxes)

all that needs to be done are:

1. shift taxes off of labor and capital and onto land values.

(rents will drop drastically)

2. rather than pay the local government - share the economic rent directly and equally with your neighbors.

mutualism has a good goal, it seems, but its method, i think, is subpar.

specifically what?

the "dual power" strategy?

- those 2 things that need to be done are huge.

- specifically this:

"Peaceful action" simply means not deliberately provoking the state to repression, but rather doing whatever is possible (in the words of the Wobbly slogan) to "build the structure of the new society within the shell of the old" before we try to break the shell.  There is nothing wrong with resisting the state if it tries, through repression, to reverse our progress in building the institutions of the new society.  But revolutionary action should meet two criteria:  1) it should have strong popular support; and 2) it should not take place until we have reached the point where peaceful construction of the new society has reached its limits within existing society.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I support a general strike idea for one reason:

It forces people to debate and come to agreement on ESSENTIAL common threads, such as individual rights.  Individual rights are tangible, objective realities as well as self-evident truths IMO.  If we can get people to drop the subjective lens they put on lawmaking, and get them to unite behind a clear message of individual rights, we could muster a LOT of national support, and send a STRONG, UNIFIED message with absolute clarity.

The bosses won't suffer unequally, the more people that can be organized.  Perhaps, some bosses may see the beauty of the idea, and support it by closing for a day "in recognition of" the event, maybe even post a sign in the window stating why they are inconveniencing their customers. (it may gain some customers also.)

I think the cost to the individual businesses would be miniscule, but it would hammer the national economy for one day, and the government would be forced to take notice if it was over 30%  of the population, especially if the message was CLEAR, and UNIFIED across the nation, in each state.

I have known many bosses who would participate, especially if they know ANYBODY who has had land or property taken for non-payment of tax.  Businesses understand more than employees how taxes affect America, don't they?

[KBCraig]

I support a general strike idea for one reason:

It forces people to debate and come to agreement on ESSENTIAL common threads

I don't like forcing people to do anything. I also don't like anyone declaring what is "ESSENTIAL". My "essential" might differ from yours at the moment. If my child needs medical attention or food, and a general strike blocks the free market from providing those things, then the striker is my enemy.

Leave people the hell alone. If I can't get to my job to earn money to feed my family, I really don't care what the reason is. Whether it's a bunch of government goons, or a bunch of "general strike" blockaders, or a bunch of union thugs throwing rocks... doesn't matter. All of the above would be interfering with my life.

I'm all in favor of persuading people to join the debate about what is "essential" in their lives. Persuasion is good; coercion is bad.

Kevin

[Russell Kanning]

I can't get excited about hammering the economy for one day. How about a year with no taxes?

[maineiac]

Hi Russ,

I was meaning to ask you if you are a non-filer with the IRS, and if so, why didn't they hammer you with various baloney charges during your recent stay in the pokey?

I have not filed a 1040 form since 1998. That is a very good question. One that I have asked myself. Since they know who I am, why don't they try me on tax evasion?

Thanks, Russ.

That clears up some questions in my mind about your actions and principles and demonstrates the unseen monumental degree of courage your protest actually required. My congratulations and admiration to you!

+karma

[Russell Kanning]

It just seems like the right thing to do. I am hoping you will join me very soon.

[maineiac]

It just seems like the right thing to do. I am hoping you will join me very soon.

Yes, nice going, Russ!

I have been a (shhhh) non-filer since long before you, so in that sense, we have already joined. I do not, however, have the stones to join you in marching down to the goons' offices and rubbing their noses in it!